Archived material Access restricted Article
Rantburg

Today's Front Page   View All of Mon 09/02/2013 View Sun 09/01/2013 View Sat 08/31/2013 View Fri 08/30/2013 View Thu 08/29/2013 View Wed 08/28/2013 View Tue 08/27/2013
1
2013-09-02 Syria-Lebanon-Iran
Will the House Authorize a Syria Strike?
Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.
Posted by Fred 2013-09-02 00:00|| || Front Page|| [11131 views ]  Top
 File under: Govt of Syria 

#1 both the senate and the house will have to revise the draft resolution to put time geographic and other limits on the President's authority; they will also try to get some better clarity on objective

if Obama cooperates in this they probably will pass something

Posted by lord garth 2013-09-02 00:25||   2013-09-02 00:25|| Front Page Top

#2 Demand a budget and an end to obamacare.
Posted by 3dc 2013-09-02 00:55||   2013-09-02 00:55|| Front Page Top

#3 No, this should be a straight up or down vote - no amendments, not tied to anything else.

Hopefully this will be voted down. This will put Obama in bind - he claims he could have done it without going to Congress. But if Congress votes it down - and explicitly says "Do not go to war" and he does anyway... Personally, I think that would be grounds for impeachment. If the President can ignore Congress, and go to war against their explicit orders, he has seriously violated the Constitution.

As Donald Sensing pointed out, any flag officer who obeys Obama's orders against the explicit will of Congress is violating his oath.
Posted by Rambler in Virginia 2013-09-02 01:32||   2013-09-02 01:32|| Front Page Top

#4 A chance for US Congress to show that they're, at least, as grown up as Brit Parliament.
Posted by g(r)omgoru 2013-09-02 02:18||   2013-09-02 02:18|| Front Page Top

#5 firing missiles at a foreign country is not necessarily war

congress didn't declare war in the Korean conflict and hasn't done so in any of the conflicts since

congress did not give obama authorization to act in Libya

it is true that under some interpretations of the War Powers Act that using force against syria could be construed as illegal but first of all a number of Presidents consider the War Powers Act to be unconstitutional and second its not clear that the WPAct applies to say a five day strike using stand off weapons
Posted by lord garth 2013-09-02 02:32||   2013-09-02 02:32|| Front Page Top

#6 So If the Norks fired a "few" missiles at the USA because of their deployment of Justin Beiber (insert other excuse) that wouldn't be an act of war?
Posted by Bright Pebbles 2013-09-02 02:51||   2013-09-02 02:51|| Front Page Top

#7 Hell BP that would be a clear cut case of "Just War".
Posted by Shipman 2013-09-02 04:14||   2013-09-02 04:14|| Front Page Top

#8 Obama hand off. Here, this is your problem now. I support the constitution. This is the proper procedure. I am the leader. They must do the right thing. Too hot today for golf. Spades sounds good. My administration is fully committed to Obama care passage now at this time. Send Powell out to help the media action.
Posted by Dale 2013-09-02 06:08||   2013-09-02 06:08|| Front Page Top

#9 This has nothing to do with Syria. It's sort of like the economy 5 years ago. No matter what the US does, things will get worse in Syria and an enemy of the US will be in charge. So Syria will get worse, no matter what.

So what is it about?

Initially it was about Samantha Powers' conscience. But now it's about 2014.

Obama wants the House under donk control. Since Syria gets worse no matter what, how does he attach blame for it to the trunks? Make it their policy that caused all the problems. Because Obama isn't responsible for anything.
Posted by Nimble Spemble 2013-09-02 07:56||   2013-09-02 07:56|| Front Page Top

#10 The one thing I don't see anyone considering is that Obama knows there will another chemical attack, which can be blamed on Assad, soon.
Posted by g(r)omgoru 2013-09-02 08:22||   2013-09-02 08:22|| Front Page Top

#11 As a point raised yesterday, no approval and taking action in which there is no clear threat to the country, has the potential to strip the man of any protection once he leaves office against international charges involving the acts of waging war. Will they? It's a gamble and considering that the man has a unique talent to alienate friends and former allies both by act and vacillation, I wouldn't write an insurance policy on it.

...congress didn't declare war in the Korean conflict

However the UN did authorize it [the Soviets were boycotting the meeting at the time] and Congress did provide the funding.
Posted by Procopius2k 2013-09-02 08:48||   2013-09-02 08:48|| Front Page Top

#12 Some liberal commentators have reacted with glee that Obama's plan puts the political onus on Speaker John Boehner

Which is tied to the long-war goal of '2014'.

My take: Congress will take a max of 3-4 days to decide. I'm figuring either a Tuesday or (more likely)Thursday, September 12, decision.

Either way, there'll be an attack window beginning September 14. September 11 is likely both too early and too symbolic for the administration to use (though I supposed the Left would love the 'tweak',) and September 13 is Yom Kippur, with all that that implies.

The one thing I don't see anyone considering is that Obama knows there will another chemical attack, which can be blamed on Assad, soon

The critical word here is "soon". "Soon" enough to engage in an immediate reprisal with Congress still debating or having voted "no"?

Or "soon" enough that US military assets have been pulled and the reprisals are aimed at Congress?

Either way, given this administration, whether it happens mid-September or after another 'chemical attack", it'll be an all-out.
Posted by Pappy 2013-09-02 09:35||   2013-09-02 09:35|| Front Page Top

#13 Don't forget the enemy gets a vote. Wonder what they have planned for this 9/11. That could have an impact on a 9/12 vote.
Posted by Nimble Spemble 2013-09-02 09:54||   2013-09-02 09:54|| Front Page Top

#14 NS, like the gas attack itself, a 9/11 plan fits more with the motivation and PR of the opposition than it does with Assad.

I doubt that the Russians would appreciate their Syrian ally getting linked in to that picture. The rebels? Hell yes especially if they could "Green Helmet" the event and control the PR.
Posted by AlanC 2013-09-02 10:57||   2013-09-02 10:57|| Front Page Top

#15 I recommend a ceasefire and issuing all warring parties Memoto Cams.

Memoto, no time consuming downloads, no worries. We'll save the snaps for you and the NSA.
Posted by Besoeker 2013-09-02 11:09||   2013-09-02 11:09|| Front Page Top

#16 A kid could swallow one of those things Besoeker, time to put them out of business.
Posted by Shipman 2013-09-02 11:15||   2013-09-02 11:15|| Front Page Top

#17 another small chem attack by assad is possible but I don't see how his forces could do a big one right now on a scale anything like the aug 21 attack

in the aug 21 attack eight neighborhoods were hit each by multiple projectiles some by more than a half dozen

this is because most of the assets assad would use for an attack for example artillery are currently being hidden and likewise the chem weapons themselves

btw I think the Obama admin would have been happy to dither or otherwise look the other way if the evidence wasn't so overwhelming
Posted by lord garth 2013-09-02 11:23||   2013-09-02 11:23|| Front Page Top

#18 So the idea is to send our military to assist the same people the president drone zaps in Yeman and who kill our service members in Afghanistan.

O's Glee Club should just be happy I'm not putting this acceptence speech for the Speaker of the House, now that this is officially an issue, something about a plan for Syria sitting next to the plan for Benghazi, next to the plan for the military budget, the public has been shut out like visitors to the White House. A massive cruise missile strike was ordered while the President learned the Samba, shall we hold our breath every time he chips for par?

I don't like any of the sides in Syria. I don't like the idea of chemical weapons being normalized. I don't trust this administration. I do look forward to the very people who wanted a post-american world arguing for intervention.
Posted by swksvolFF 2013-09-02 14:38||   2013-09-02 14:38|| Front Page Top

#19 Whaddyou mean, He's dithering now, involve the House.
(That stalls and wastes time, he doesn't want approval, just delay.)
Posted by Redneck Jim 2013-09-02 14:41||   2013-09-02 14:41|| Front Page Top

#20 That's right, RJ, dithering.

He can wait and watch, assess the media reaction, then decide what he wants to do whether the Congress votes approval or not. It's good to be king.

And I'm sure he can find a way to continue to dither!
Posted by Bobby 2013-09-02 15:44||   2013-09-02 15:44|| Front Page Top

#21 With the recent surfacing of Prince Bandar and the Soodi involvement, anybody here think it might be connected to Oil and Gas ?
Posted by Besoeker 2013-09-02 15:45||   2013-09-02 15:45|| Front Page Top

#22 You mean the longer the Prez dithers, the more the uncertainty drives the price of oil?
Posted by Bobby 2013-09-02 16:55||   2013-09-02 16:55|| Front Page Top

#23 With the recent surfacing of Prince Bandar and the Soodi involvement, anybody here think it might be connected to Oil and Gas ?

No.
Posted by Pappy 2013-09-02 22:41||   2013-09-02 22:41|| Front Page Top

22:41 Pappy
22:34 Pappy
22:29 Pappy
20:33 Frank G
20:04 Thing From Snowy Mountain
19:08 Besoeker
18:38 Skidmark
18:31 Paul D
18:22 swksvolFF
18:02 Barbara
17:47 Besoeker
17:42 Shipman
17:40 Whomoper Oppressor of the Danes1311
17:28 Zenobia Floger6220
17:20 Airandee
17:02 badanov
17:00 Bobby
16:58 g(r)omgoru
16:55 Bobby
16:47 USN,Ret.
16:46 AlanC
16:45 USN,Ret.
16:41 AlmostAnonymous5839
16:37 AlanC









Paypal:
Google
Search WWW Search rantburg.com