Obama faces uphill climb on Syria vote

Obama faces uphill climb on Syria vote

www.cnn.com

Even if the Senate backs President Barack Obama's call for military action against Syria, a wall of outright opposition or skepticism from Democrats and Republicans in the House makes approval there very difficult.

House Speaker John Boehner, who backs Obama on the issue, welcomed news on Friday that the president would deliver a national address on Tuesday to try to sway public opinion, which now opposes such a step.

(visit the link for the full news article)

Many congress members are getting phone calls from their constituents and ratio is like 90%+ against the vote.

MSN public poll on Syria vote shows 7 to 1 against the vote.

It seems Obama will not go with the attack but the worse alternative will be chosen.

This alternative of openly arming the rebels will further up the momentum in the Syrian civil war. This will result in more causalities and displacement of common people.

WHY CAN'T US AND ITS PROXIES KEEP THEIR NOSES OUT OF ME COUNTRIES. JUST LEAVE THEM ALONE !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


www.cnn.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

onlineathens.com...

WASHINGTON — Suggesting an uphill fight for President Barack Obama, House members staking out positions are either opposed to or leaning against his plan for a U.S. military strike against Syria by more than a 6-1 margin a survey by The Associated Press shows. The Senate is more evenly divided ahead of its vote next week.

Still, the situation is very fluid. Nearly half of the 433-member House and a third of the 100-member Senate remain undecided.

An uphill climb, you figure? Well, I have a way I think it can be expressed....and it's about how I have diplomatically and professionally expressed it for where I live, though not quite this colorfully, I admit.



We could just name him Barack Hillary, but that is almost too much. lol.... Oh, it's an uphill climb alright. No oxygen for him either. Call it sequestration...

reply to post by wrabbit2000


Obama does not have neither "balls nor backing" to launch an attack without Congressional approval.

If he does so, a) Republicans might seek impeachment b) chances for Hillary or any democrat in 2016 will be crushed.

Why ignite civil wars in other countries in the first place? Some sort of sick entertainment ??

reply to post by victor7

Why ignite civil wars in other countries in the first place? Some sort of sick entertainment ??

You hit the nail on the head, whether you meant to or not, IMO. That makes no sense. MUCH of this, makes no sense. It makes no sense because we only have PART of the picture they are working on forming here. We can guess at the missing pieces and together, we're all probably holding pieces of that by chance, if nothing else.

Why Syria at this precise moment in time? Why go after Syria harder when Egypt is throwing off the Muslim Brotherhood control there? You'd think the focus would be more on shoring things up than digging in deeper elsewhere, since these are largely the same people all around. (The history of the armed conflict between the M.B. and the Syrian Government openly dates clear into the 80s at least). None of that makes sense for order OR urgency of events.

What did Obama mean when he told Medvedev across that accidentally hot mic before the election that he'd have more freedom after re-election as a message to be taken back to Putin? That's always bugged me. It still does. VERY much.


Now no one can rightly say what Obama does or doesn't have the balls to do here when we can only guess at the motivations which are driving him and just how critical they are to him. Given the right motivation, anything can be justified and just done out of need. Is he considering such a factor we aren't aware of for either good OR bad reasons?

There is FAR too much unknown here, IMO, to assume anything like Obama's future actions. Just too much we don't know....and that should NEVER be the case under our system.

The powers of persuasion Tuesday night. Stay tuned to see how many write new letters to congress. Hope not but he is good at his craft.

reply to post by wrabbit2000


Obama is worried that if punishment is not rendered to Syrian regime then use of CWs and other WMDs will become a common matter. He is right in that sense.

However, punishment does not have to be military, it can be economic and other ways also.

At last it seems US political circles are realizing that MB and AQ types running the rebel show have other agendas at hand if they take to power, like in Egypt.

However, as to what these politicians and intelligence committee members know is other thing as their actions will be more guided by the closed secrets rather than the common average joe sentiments.

By looking at all the things and how it doesn't quite make sense to get involved in that country's affairs on the surface... I can only speculate and give my 2¢.

So... Going on what I can tell (or make a guess of.)

The ball for this actually rests in the EU's court. (Obama this, Obama that... Pfft... Even though he's fronting, I have some feeling he's not the one actually calling the shot on this.) Has to do with long-term energy purchases. If they go with Russia, this will likely fizzle out. If they're more interested in business with Emirates, Saudi Arabia, etc., then odds are fairly high that it's gonna go down.

U.S. doesn't need to do this for many reasons, but with that deficit and stuff we don't hear about, the old adage "money talks, B.S. walks" probably has a lot to do with it. It depends on what the economic players behind the scenes try to pull off, and no they're not necessarily just the countries involved. (I suppose it comes down to which speculators and market manipulators have the better connections. Money and material to drive a conflict comes from somewhere, and to me it's very doubtful anything "grass-roots" can get it all together that fast. Sucks that a lot of people die either way so some greedy b#'s pulling the strings can make a buck, but that's how I see it.)

Now am I awful for seeing it that way, or is there something to it?

Originally posted by victor7
reply to post by wrabbit2000

 

Obama does not have neither "balls nor backing" to launch an attack without Congressional approval.

If he does so, a) Republicans might seek impeachment b) chances for Hillary or any democrat in 2016 will be crushed.

Why ignite civil wars in other countries in the first place? Some sort of sick entertainment ??

Unfortunately there would be absolutely no grounds for impeachment. Just look at Clinton with Kosovo or Obama with Libya. He does not need Congress' approval, he is just using it as a formality most likely because, like you said, he doesn't have the balls and is looking for an excuse to back out after his "red line" comment. Either that or it's because of the flak he received over Libya and he will attack anyway. Also, whether it is a democrat or republican in office does not matter when they're both batting for the same team.

Originally posted by victor7

Obama faces uphill climb on Syria vote

www.cnn.com

Even if the Senate backs President Barack Obama's call for military action against Syria, a wall of outright opposition or skepticism from Democrats and Republicans in the House makes approval there very difficult.

House Speaker John Boehner, who backs Obama on the issue, welcomed news on Friday that the president would deliver a national address on Tuesday to try to sway public opinion, which now opposes such a step.

(visit the link for the full news article)

Uphill climb?...I would call it climbing with no robe up a sheer rock face.... (90% of America is against it and 90% of the WORLD, you know the ones that drew the red line, are against it.

www.reuters.com...


WASHINGTON: It seems that everyone in Washington is talking about it except President Barack Obama: When Congress votes on the administration's request to use military force in Syria, the future of his presidency could well be on the line.

I keep getting "no he won't order strike if congress says no" "yes he probably will". I do wish we could get a straight answer. Knowing his career is on the line I think the most accurate answer is yes. I read part of the Q & A from yesterday where he says, "I'm not going to play parlor games right now". Basically he won't answer the question. So if he does it anyway, and we all see how much damage it does his career will be down the tubes anyway. How does supporting congress hurt this guy? I would think it would be the opposite. Why is backing off harmful to him - listening to the American people? Appreciate some clarity if anyone can provide.

newsbusters.org...

reply to post by Dianec


There are many ways of looking at it and I am sure O is thinking on this every waking minute. He can risk impeachment if Congress says no, being Black and not liked by majority in real sense he will be at a big disadvantage if he goes with the strikes and Assad or Iran answer back with some attack on US interests in the region or god forbid in the US itself.

Obama's advisers can say US bases in ME are at risk of CW attack by Assad but that is taking it tooooooo far into the possibility zone. That way, US forces in Afghanistan are at risk of Pak nukes also and 1000s of possible scenarios are there to justify strikes on Pak and so forth.

If Congress refuses, then Obama better tow along and play it safe. More so because US has been in wars for last 10-12 years and it is no fun anymore draining budget by $10B or more a month.

www.debka.com...

Debka reports Obama is readying a big big package.

The reports coming out of Washington in the last 24 hours indicate that US President Barack Obama has resolved not just to degrade Syria’s chemical capabilities but also to take down Bashar Assad’s air force, destroy his air bases and knock out his ground-to-ground ballistic missiles, using giant B-52 bombers and B-2 stealth bombers. Some of the bombers will fly in directly from the US; others from the Al Udeid base in Qatar. F-22 Raptor fighter-bombers are also scheduled to take part in the US air offensive.