what are the chances Congrees will give authorization?

[QuickHitCurepon]

From how they debate it in congress, Obama and his administration will have an excellent idea of how many votes they are going to get. And they can ask or find out how someone will vote behind the scene, also.

We already have the Kerry speech, and that was enough to silence any audible opposition to a war in MSM, so if Obama feels they are lacking some votes, he can roll out more heavy-hitters to support him, and if he loses, he can roll out the clean-up hitter that will give new reasons why we still have to attack. It's a long road ahead folks, once Obama made his intentions clear with Kerry.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Since when did he care about the authorization of Congress? I mean he uses Executive Fiat more times than Miley Cyrus twerks on a stage. Funny stuff.

 

[auditor0007]

None.

It was a smart move by Obama. All the finger-waggers who want yet another war (sadly some of them are liberals, but not most) will have to take their case up with Congress and the American people. He can get off the hook for his 'red line' mistake.

He will still be embarrassed after saying today that bombing is the right thing to do...and that he has the authority to do it no matter what congress votes.
How much more humiliation can he take?

If Congress does not go along with him and Assad uses these chemical weapons again, then who will look stupid and who will look smart? Just saying.... I don't support a military strike of any kind at this time, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't or won't happen.

 

[MisterBeale]

What are the chances the tools of the global elites in congress will approve a pre-ordained agenda that people who have been paying attention knew was coming for years? I'd say they are fairly good. This is the beginning of the end folks. After the vote, it's time to make your preparations to head for the hills. Russia and China have warned us not to intervene, we chose to ignore them at our own peril.

[ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6HIIw9dbWGA"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6HIIw9dbWGA[/ame]

 

[SherriMunnerlyn]

Hopefully zero.

Congress is so out of touch with the electorate however in this non-election year, I put the actual chances at somewhere around 75% they will give tacit approval.

I hope I'm wrong.

And that is why between now and September 9 we should all be contacting members of Congress and expressing our opposition to an attack on Syria.

 

[candycorn]

Hopefully zero.

Congress is so out of touch with the electorate however in this non-election year, I put the actual chances at somewhere around 75% they will give tacit approval.

I hope I'm wrong.

And that is why between now and September 9 we should all be contacting members of Congress and expressing our opposition to an attack on Syria.

Can't hurt. I tend to think, however, that situations just like this are the situations where our Congressional representative thinks to themselves, "I know better". In some cases they are right. This isn't one of them.

 

[ba1614]

I say slim to none. Repubs will leave Obabble twisting in the wind (as it were)...while the left, after all they have said about W's reckless behavior, will be emarrassed to support another war.

Then...any further use of chemical weapons on civilians will be on them.

No, it's on the assholes who use it.

Why do progressives always always always look for someone, or something, to blame other than the party responsible?

 

[candycorn]

I say slim to none. Repubs will leave Obabble twisting in the wind (as it were)...while the left, after all they have said about W's reckless behavior, will be emarrassed to support another war.

Then...any further use of chemical weapons on civilians will be on them.

No, it's on the assholes who use it.

Why do progressives always always always look for someone, or something, to blame other than the party responsible?

Well, it is Bush used in is rush to war in Iraq; the old "What will the History books say about us argument..." for going in to take out WMDs.

I personally didn't buy it then and I'm not buying it now. History *should* say that the commander and chief looked at his army and decided the threat was 15,000 miles away and it wasn't worth their lives. The really ironic thing about this is that if you were to look at a map of the region and the relationship to our only true ally (and that is a stretch sometimes) Israel, Syria is much more of a threat to our interests. The Bush doctrine poisoned the water for America's appetite to get involved over there.

 

[Crackerjaxon]

He doesn't need Congressional approval, legally, but politically he does. Otherwise, he has nobody to blame when it all backfires.

Yes, legally he does. Read the War Powers Act.

 

[BDBoop]

You are all nuts.

100% congress WILL approve military action. You are all blind.

BTW, we are already starting. Congress approval is simply a minor annoyance to Obama and he ios going to force them to capitulate.

Bitch, please. He hasn't been able to force them to do shit for five long years - but this he can do.

 

[BDBoop]

Obama went golfing with Biden after his announcement...spades tournament tonite I suppose....

Really? Do you also work morning, noon, night, weekends and holidays?

 

[KissMy]

He doesn't need Congressional approval, legally, but politically he does. Otherwise, he has nobody to blame when it all backfires.

Yes, legally he does. Read the War Powers Act.

He is not talking about "The War Powers Act of 1941".

The President legally doesn't need Congressional approval to commit the United States to an armed conflict due to the "The War Powers Resolution of 1973"

The War Powers Resolution provides that the President can send U.S. armed forces into action abroad by declaration of war by Congress, "statutory authorization," or in case of "a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces." It has been violated in the past by President Reagan in regards to the aid to the Contras in Nicaragua and by President Clinton in 1999, during the bombing campaign in Kosovo. All incidents have had congressional disapproval, but none have had any successful legal actions taken against the president for violations.

 

[zeke]

Going golfing at the moment he did was truly disgusting. Really beyond the pale of disgusting.

Getting authorization is slim to none. There is always a chance, but it is a slim one. obama did what Bush never did. He united democrats and republicans against him.

Unless of course a couple of high ranking members of the Congress were part of the foursome....Ok, just kidding.
The President playing golf at time such as this does seem inappropriate.

It seems so inappropriate to you eh? How about Congress on vacation. Are you thinking that their Congressional vacation is inappropriate? At times such as this. Whatever time that is.

Or is it just Obama playing golf on Saturday? At least Obama is in Washington.

 

[ba1614]

Then...any further use of chemical weapons on civilians will be on them.

No, it's on the assholes who use it.

Why do progressives always always always look for someone, or something, to blame other than the party responsible?

Well, it is Bush used in is rush to war in Iraq; the old "What will the History books say about us argument..." for going in to take out WMDs.

I personally didn't buy it then and I'm not buying it now. History *should* say that the commander and chief looked at his army and decided the threat was 15,000 miles away and it wasn't worth their lives. The really ironic thing about this is that if you were to look at a map of the region and the relationship to our only true ally (and that is a stretch sometimes) Israel, Syria is much more of a threat to our interests. The Bush doctrine poisoned the water for America's appetite to get involved over there.

Yes I know, Boooooossssshhhhhh did it!! Broken record some posters here are.

 

[Edgetho]

Going golfing at the moment he did was truly disgusting. Really beyond the pale of disgusting.

Getting authorization is slim to none. There is always a chance, but it is a slim one. obama did what Bush never did. He united democrats and republicans against him.

Unless of course a couple of high ranking members of the Congress were part of the foursome....Ok, just kidding.
The President playing golf at time such as this does seem inappropriate.

It seems so inappropriate to you eh? How about Congress on vacation. Are you thinking that their Congressional vacation is inappropriate? At times such as this. Whatever time that is.

Or is it just Obama playing golf on Saturday? At least Obama is in Washington.

Can SoH Boehner call the Senate back from recess? No?

Then shut up

 

[Freewill]

You are all nuts.

100% congress WILL approve military action. You are all blind.

BTW, we are already starting. Congress approval is simply a minor annoyance to Obama and he ios going to force them to capitulate.

Bitch, please. He hasn't been able to force them to do shit for five long years - but this he can do.

Really? Just the other day there was posted a long list of what was called Obama accomplishments. I really can't see one thing he didn't get that was of any major importance. Yes, some of his nominees have been held up but if he nominated someone other then die hard leftists then maybe he wouldn't have such a problem.

 

[JoeB131]

I think Congress will for no other reason that if they vote no, and tie Obama's hands, Assad can launch his whole arsenal against the rebels at that point.

 

[Redfish]

I think Congress will for no other reason that if they vote no, and tie Obama's hands, Assad can launch his whole arsenal against the rebels at that point.

So what if he does? WE are not the world's police force. We are not the world's ethics committee.

Let them fight it out until someone wins. Any involvement from us will only make it last longer.

ITS NONE OF OUR DAMN BUSINESS.

 

[deltex1]

I say slim to none. Repubs will leave Obabble twisting in the wind (as it were)...while the left, after all they have said about W's reckless behavior, will be emarrassed to support another war.

Listening to the talking heads this morning, I am reminded that the repubs have no balls and the dems have blind unquestioning loyalty to their party...and the press is with them..........so my prediction above may need revision.

 

[dblack]

I say slim to none. Repubs will leave Obabble twisting in the wind (as it were)...while the left, after all they have said about W's reckless behavior, will be emarrassed to support another war.

Listening to the talking heads this morning, I am reminded that the repubs have no balls and the dems have blind unquestioning loyalty to their party...and the press is with them..........so my prediction above may need revision.

Yeah.... so, let's go full retard and indulge some paranoia. The neo-cons don't take chances with their war plans. If there was any chance Congress would refuse, I don't think they'd bother with a vote.