drsmooth wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:
He believes he has a responsibility to act, though he's clearly not enthusiastic about it. Congress voting against action would prevent him from what he views as his responsibility, following through on his word. Whether he has to run for office again or not is completely fucking irrelevant.

only in your 'convinced he does not want to take this to Congress' mind

You've misread the available data before, badly (particularly some guy named Romney). I'm not really persuaded by your 'hilarious' eyewash on this issue

The White House wanting to avoid having to get Congressional approval in every news report that talks about the idea of involving Congress. You're willfully avoiding news reports if you don't think he's trying to avoid Congress weighing in officially.

He won’t have Congress; even if lawmakers were called back into session, does anyone think the White House would risk a vote on this topic, now?

ABC

The White House presented its case for military action to Congressional leaders on Thursday evening, trying to head off growing pressure from Democrats and Republicans to provide more information about the administration’s military planning and seek Congressional approval for any action.

The New York Times

The administration insisted Thursday that President Obama has both the authority and the determination to make his own decision on a military strike against Syria, even as a growing chorus of lawmakers demanded an opportunity to vote on the issue and Britain, the United States’ closest ally, appeared unlikely to participate.

The Washington Post, and to boot they have an editorial urging him to seek Congressional approval.

But this is just in my mind.

Everyone here is more concerned with ends than means.

For the president, the desired end seems to be striking Syria in a way that backs up his statements and "defends American credibility" without worsening the situation on the ground or blundering into another major military commitment.

For the Rs in congress, it's what it always is: inflicting a political defeat on the president. He'd lose that vote.

Plus I'm sure that if he goes around them, the impeachment argument--currently "we REALLY don't like him AND he's black"--actually gets some legs to it.

Were it my call, I'd accept the defeat in Congress, as Cameron did in Parliament. But we're probably too far down Imperial Presidency Road for any holder of the office to accept that outcome. So the likely result will be an ineffectual military strike, triggering another vicious partisan battle just as the debt ceiling vote approaches.

Kerry to speak at 1230

White House spokesman Josh Earnest said Obama was still weighing a potential response to the chemical weapons attacks.

The president has said that he is not considering a no-fly zone and has ruled out U.S. boots on the ground in Syria.

in any event, they've waited longer than most previously thought they would, so who knows

heard a good one: 'a cruise missile parking ticket'

Kerry bout to speak

1245 AND NO ANNOUNCEMENT YET! ANOTHER BROKEN PROMISE FROM THE OBUMMER ADMINISTRATION!!!

They do have a chronic lateness problem. I need to shower and get ready to go. Hurry up, Frenchie.

enjoy hearing the reporters swear back and forth on the Wapo live stream

jerseyhoya wrote:They do have a chronic lateness problem. I need to shower and get ready to go. Hurry up, Frenchie.

a conservative took me serious on twitter. sheesh, get your tweeter goggles on

said they got the proof, went into specifics, said to see for yourself, gonna work with congress and not repeat an Iraq mistake. no boots on the ground, wont be like Iraq, Afghanistan or Libya

1429 people killed, 426 children killed. administration bombed to try to cover up the evidence.

final solution for this mess is at the bargaining table, politically, talking it out

who the fuck knows what we should do...no good answers. need to bring Assad to the table to resign somehow. this is why we cant fearmonger russia or iran, need to come to an understanding about all this crap.

jerseyhoya wrote:

drsmooth wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:
He believes he has a responsibility to act, though he's clearly not enthusiastic about it. Congress voting against action would prevent him from what he views as his responsibility, following through on his word. Whether he has to run for office again or not is completely fucking irrelevant.

only in your 'convinced he does not want to take this to Congress' mind

You've misread the available data before, badly (particularly some guy named Romney). I'm not really persuaded by your 'hilarious' eyewash on this issue

The White House wanting to avoid having to get Congressional approval in every news report that talks about the idea of involving Congress. You're willfully avoiding news reports if you don't think he's trying to avoid Congress weighing in officially.

He won’t have Congress; even if lawmakers were called back into session, does anyone think the White House would risk a vote on this topic, now?

ABC

The White House presented its case for military action to Congressional leaders on Thursday evening, trying to head off growing pressure from Democrats and Republicans to provide more information about the administration’s military planning and seek Congressional approval for any action.

The New York Times

The administration insisted Thursday that President Obama has both the authority and the determination to make his own decision on a military strike against Syria, even as a growing chorus of lawmakers demanded an opportunity to vote on the issue and Britain, the United States’ closest ally, appeared unlikely to participate.

The Washington Post, and to boot they have an editorial urging him to seek Congressional approval.

But this is just in my mind.

I think you really need to go back to the items you've quoted yourself to try to find find any one of them where it says Barry has ruled out gaining some kind of congressional support for any action he takes.

"insisting it has the authority" is not the same as "not going to get Congressional input"

another of your quotes states "the White House presented its case for military action to Congressional leaders on Thursday evening"

You have to strain to call that "avoiding" Congress

Well, I would, and I believe most people would.

You, now, you've always been a caution

In what galaxy do the current congressional leaders represent the views of the full congress - specifically in the house? What an absurd, biased perspective. Also must have missed the part of the quote that followed up "insisted" with "determined." In any case, the positive so far is that the hesitancy over the week shows at least some sense, even if it is sense built from image consciousness rather than objectivity. This whole episode seems more like a testing of the waters than anything else - on Monday the rhetoric was strong and insistent and the wheels seemed to be in motion for fast action, but by Wednesday the near universal outcry in opposition forced complete strategic revaluation.

karn wrote:- on Monday the rhetoric was strong and insistent and the wheels seemed to be in motion for fast action, but by Wednesday the near universal outcry in opposition forced complete strategic revaluation.

Sort of like how shit happens in the real world

pretty amazing stuff

drsmooth wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:

drsmooth wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:
He believes he has a responsibility to act, though he's clearly not enthusiastic about it. Congress voting against action would prevent him from what he views as his responsibility, following through on his word. Whether he has to run for office again or not is completely fucking irrelevant.

only in your 'convinced he does not want to take this to Congress' mind

You've misread the available data before, badly (particularly some guy named Romney). I'm not really persuaded by your 'hilarious' eyewash on this issue

The White House wanting to avoid having to get Congressional approval in every news report that talks about the idea of involving Congress. You're willfully avoiding news reports if you don't think he's trying to avoid Congress weighing in officially.

He won’t have Congress; even if lawmakers were called back into session, does anyone think the White House would risk a vote on this topic, now?

ABC

The White House presented its case for military action to Congressional leaders on Thursday evening, trying to head off growing pressure from Democrats and Republicans to provide more information about the administration’s military planning and seek Congressional approval for any action.

The New York Times

The administration insisted Thursday that President Obama has both the authority and the determination to make his own decision on a military strike against Syria, even as a growing chorus of lawmakers demanded an opportunity to vote on the issue and Britain, the United States’ closest ally, appeared unlikely to participate.

The Washington Post, and to boot they have an editorial urging him to seek Congressional approval.

But this is just in my mind.

I think you really need to go back to the items you've quoted yourself to try to find find any one of them where it says Barry has ruled out gaining some kind of congressional support for any action he takes.

"insisting it has the authority" is not the same as "not going to get Congressional input"

another of your quotes states "the White House presented its case for military action to Congressional leaders on Thursday evening"

You have to strain to call that "avoiding" Congress

Well, I would, and I believe most people would.

You, now, you've always been a caution

Haha, I just saw this post. Are you fucking kidding me? You must be, there's no other explanation.

It looks like we're going to bomb Syria in the next couple of days. Obama has made absolutely no attempt to gain Congressional sanction for his actions. The administration has steadfastly avoided trying to bring Congress into the process in any formal manner. They're talking to a handful of key congressmen on the phone. That's a million miles away from seeking Congressional approval.

Is it impossible that with his coalition now able to fit at a table for two that he might reassess and decide he needs Congress's seal of approval? I hope not. It's what he should've been doing all along. But it still seems unlikely based on every single fucking report from every single fucking news source in the entire fucking country. Jesus.

jeff2sf posts here again. It was arguments like this that I missed him weighing in on.

jerseyhoya wrote:Haha, I just saw this post. Are you fucking kidding me? You must be, there's no other explanation.

It looks like we're going to bomb Syria in the next couple of days. Obama has made absolutely no attempt to gain Congressional sanction for his actions. The administration has steadfastly avoided trying to bring Congress into the process in any formal manner. They're talking to a handful of key congressmen on the phone. That's a million miles away from seeking Congressional approval.

Is it impossible that with his coalition now able to fit at a table for two that he might reassess and decide he needs Congress's seal of approval? I hope not. It's what he should've been doing all along. But it still seems unlikely based on every single fucking report from every single fucking news source in the entire fucking country. Jesus.

jeff2sf posts here again. It was arguments like this that I missed him weighing in on.

I generally give your stuff the attention it deserves. Here you seem to feel that simply stamping your tiny feet and chanting your exaggerations make what you insist on 'true' and my suggestions that your 'hilarious' exaggerations merit some reconsideration outrageous.

You feel inaccurately.

Let's take your notion about 'seeking congressional approval'. How would YOU engage a congress that in terms of its solonic maturity is barely able to wield crayons? I mean, this matter has nothing whatsoever to do with overturning health reform, so why shouldn't they (the oxymoronic congressional "leadership") just continue to eat paint chips over there, and pretend they have no agency whatsoever?

maybe you should attempt to give this ugly issue and its complications about 12 seconds of genuine thought rather than shaking your pompoms over its "their team/my team" political connotations

can't wait to hear aaron sorkin's take on all this mess two years from now

He's going through Congress.

/eats some crow
//wouldn't have done it if Britain was on board

liberals: doing that thing i want, darn i knew he was...oh wait, he did that thing i wanted? but how can i complain about him now? i know, it's because he listened to others and was influenced by the national discussion, that fraud!

republicans: doing that thing we told him he was supposed to do, FUCK now we have to do something, but what?!

Obama, Boehner and Reid need to get Congress back by Tuesday

We were all set to go this week, now we're waiting two more weeks? The whole point of action is to send a message that usage of chemical weapons is a nono. What the hell message is this sending?