I agree that this is a tough choice no matter which we you go. Still I think that within his tough options the President's move in calling on Congress to vote is very good if not inspired move. After all, it's what the economist call a free good-the GOP is going to rip apart whatever decision he takes so why not put the burden of proof on them?
Josh Marshall argues that the President didn't need Congress's approval to do this-however, even if this is true it still may be the best choice.
"As I signaled over the weekend, I’m not clear on the best way to proceed with the poor set of options we appear to have in Syria. I’m also of mixed mind on Obama’s decision to take the question to Congress. I think there is no question that the President does not need Congress’s approval to take the action he seems inclined to take. And I’m surprised how many people now seem to think or pretend otherwise. That said, it is often wise to seek such authorization. And what we’ve seen over the last three days shows some of the perversity that grows up when Congress is not involved in questions of war and peace."
Josh Marshall argues that the President didn't need Congress's approval to do this-however, even if this is true it still may be the best choice.
"As I signaled over the weekend, I’m not clear on the best way to proceed with the poor set of options we appear to have in Syria. I’m also of mixed mind on Obama’s decision to take the question to Congress. I think there is no question that the President does not need Congress’s approval to take the action he seems inclined to take. And I’m surprised how many people now seem to think or pretend otherwise. That said, it is often wise to seek such authorization. And what we’ve seen over the last three days shows some of the perversity that grows up when Congress is not involved in questions of war and peace."
"You now have Republican members of Congress deploring 1) President Obama’s refusal to take military action against Syria, 2) insisting that he requires congressional authorization to do so or he should be impeached, 3) saying they won’t vote to authorize it because he won’t go far enough and 4) also because he’ll go too far. And the kicker is that it’s often the same person saying each of these mainly or in some cases totally contradictory things at the same time. I say Republicans. And in this case, their extreme animus toward the president intensifies the nonsense. But the shoe might well be on the other foot if a president of the other party were in office."
"So if nothing else this is a good result of Obama’s decision: making people decide. You want to make this happen or prevent it from happening. Without accountability and some say in the process, you have this perverse process of everybody coming up with their own boutique war policy. I’m for it but only if it’s limited and gets the job done. I’m totally for kicking ass and saving the children, but I’m going to vote no because of Obamacare. Everybody just show their cards and live with it without excuses."
What about Obama's resolution itself to intervene in Syria, outside of the Congress question? It's touch choice but it seems to me that this may be the best choice. Clearly everyone doesn't see it this way
Most Americans' don't support action in Syria.
Ideally, you'd prefer a UN or NATO action like we got in Libya. However, this is not forthcoming with Russia gumming up the works. In light of this, I think it's at least defensible to take action.
Heck, Obama is even denying that he drew a 'red line'. Now it's everyone else who did that, not the mere POTUS, leader of the free world.
ReplyDeleteReally think Assad, Putin, the Chinese...aren't laughing themselves silly at this dilettante?
Mike, don't feed the troll. I'm warning you...
ReplyDeleteNanute, the important thing is you're ok. I was worried about you-about to put out an apb! LOL
Delete