What is Obama's End Game Here?

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from miscricket. Show miscricket's posts

    What is Obama's End Game Here?

    Yesterday, I watched as President Obama addressed the nation on Syria. For several days now..our elected representatives and senators in Congress have been on the news and giving interviews which expressed a desire that they ( Congress) have a say in any potential military action against Syria.

    Now..most of us who have followed policitics for many years understand these comments for what they are..bluster, posturing and rhetoric. The thought that our current "do-nothing" Congress suddenly wants to be engaged is laughable.

    Well..it seems that Obama is calling their bluff. The President, in a surprise announcement yesterday stated that he would seek Congressional approval for any military strike.

    If Obama truly sticks to this..does anyone care to guess on the over /under any action is actually taken? Why should we as Americans have any faith that Congress will manage to agree on this and take a stand and a vote when they haven't proven to us up to this point that they can agree on anything?

    So this makes Obama one of two things. He is either a brilliant political strategist who is going to prove to America the absolute depths of incompetence in the current Congress...or he is one of the weakest leaders in modern history. Obama's position is clear. The only question is will he follow through.

    I watch this process with interest because at the end of the day, I don't even know how I feel about unilateral military intervention by the US. It's not that I don't think Assad should be punished..it's that I think that this should be something coordinated by the UN. Of course..the UN is even more dysfunctional than Congress...

     
  2. This post has been removed.

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from AlleyCatBruin. Show AlleyCatBruin's posts

    Re: What is Obama's End Game Here?

    In response to miscricket's comment:

    Yesterday, I watched as President Obama addressed the nation on Syria. For several days now..our elected representatives and senators in Congress have been on the news and giving interviews which expressed a desire that they ( Congress) have a say in any potential military action against Syria.

    Now..most of us who have followed policitics for many years understand these comments for what they are..bluster, posturing and rhetoric. The thought that our current "do-nothing" Congress suddenly wants to be engaged is laughable.

    Well..it seems that Obama is calling their bluff. The President, in a surprise announcement yesterday stated that he would seek Congressional approval for any military strike.

    If Obama truly sticks to this..does anyone care to guess on the over /under any action is actually taken? Why should we as Americans have any faith that Congress will manage to agree on this and take a stand and a vote when they haven't proven to us up to this point that they can agree on anything?

    So this makes Obama one of two things. He is either a brilliant political strategist who is going to prove to America the absolute depths of incompetence in the current Congress...or he is one of the weakest leaders in modern history. Obama's position is clear. The only question is will he follow through.

    I watch this process with interest because at the end of the day, I don't even know how I feel about unilateral military intervention by the US. It's not that I don't think Assad should be punished..it's that I think that this should be something coordinated by the UN. Of course..the UN is even more dysfunctional than Congress...



    I think President Obama gave fair warning to Syria to not use chemical weapons. He's also said all along that that he wouldn't take action without a coalition and UN approval. He needed to go to Congress, who have pretty much been a "do nothing" bunch. It's the right thing to do. It has been republican Senators "Grumpy" McCain and Lindsey Graham (R-Fabulous) who have been calling for intervention all along. So, let's hear what Congress has to say:)..... 

    With Conressionally mandated budget cuts to the military (sequester), which passed with a majority of republican votes, I'd be curious to see what they expect from our military in this and any other future uses of military force.

    The republicans clearly are not pro-military with a democrat in the white house.....

     

     

     

     

     

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: What is Obama's End Game Here?

    In response to AlleyCatBruin's comment:

     

    In response to miscricket's comment:

     

     

    Yesterday, I watched as President Obama addressed the nation on Syria. For several days now..our elected representatives and senators in Congress have been on the news and giving interviews which expressed a desire that they ( Congress) have a say in any potential military action against Syria.

    Now..most of us who have followed policitics for many years understand these comments for what they are..bluster, posturing and rhetoric. The thought that our current "do-nothing" Congress suddenly wants to be engaged is laughable.

    Well..it seems that Obama is calling their bluff. The President, in a surprise announcement yesterday stated that he would seek Congressional approval for any military strike.

    If Obama truly sticks to this..does anyone care to guess on the over /under any action is actually taken? Why should we as Americans have any faith that Congress will manage to agree on this and take a stand and a vote when they haven't proven to us up to this point that they can agree on anything?

    So this makes Obama one of two things. He is either a brilliant political strategist who is going to prove to America the absolute depths of incompetence in the current Congress...or he is one of the weakest leaders in modern history. Obama's position is clear. The only question is will he follow through.

    I watch this process with interest because at the end of the day, I don't even know how I feel about unilateral military intervention by the US. It's not that I don't think Assad should be punished..it's that I think that this should be something coordinated by the UN. Of course..the UN is even more dysfunctional than Congress...

     

     



    I think President Obama gave fair warning to Syria to not use chemical weapons. He's also said all along that that he wouldn't take action without a coalition and UN approval. He needed to go to Congress, who have pretty much been a "do nothing" bunch. It's the right thing to do. It has been republican Senators "Grumpy" McCain and Lindsey Graham (R-Fabulous) who have been calling for intervention all along. So, let's hear what Congress has to say:)..... 

     

     

    With Conressionally mandated budget cuts to the military (sequester), which passed with a majority of republican votes, I'd be curious to see what they expect from our military in this and any other future uses of military force.

    The republicans clearly are not pro-military with a democrat in the white house.....

     

     

     

     

     

     




    I find it odd that a presdident that has proudly done whatever he wants with executive orders now is so accepting of constitutional limitations, and will defer to congress.

     

    Given Bohner the bonehead is runnign things over there, and the MSM is in Obama's pockets, it is now a lose/lose from the perspective of congressional republicans:  They approve military action, it is on them, they vote against military action, it is on them.

    Basically, congress is in the position of covering Obama's big bluster.

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from Hansoribrother. Show Hansoribrother's posts

    Re: What is Obama's End Game Here?

    So what is the real end game? Assad has killed 90,000 of his citizens in the last two years. Why are those deaths unimportant compared to 1000 that got killed from chemical weapons? If the policy of the US is to protect the lives of innocent civilians in Syria (as if anyone really has a clue what our policy is), what the heck took so long to take action?

    Really, can anyone say what the benefit is for us to attack Syria compared to the risks to world peace that might be set off?

    The end game with Obama is pure ego and politics. He took the cowboy approach with his "red line" bravado and the Syrians (maybe) called his bluff. Now he is looking like a major league whimp to our adversaries in Iran, Russia, China, etc. How many times has he threatened Iran over the nuclear weapon issue? And now he is backing off on his faux tough talk of a "red line".

    In 2007, whenthe Boston Globe asked Obama if the president have constitutional authority to bomb Iran without seeking a use-of-force authorization from Congress, this was his reply:

    "The president does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation," 

    So this amateur has gone from respect for the Constitution when Bush was President to trashing it when he is President. He trashed it in Libya. And now that he has NO SUPPORT from the American people for his chickenhawk talk about attacking Syria over chemical weapons, he hands it back to Congress in another show of incompetence and weakness. He should have handled that long before he started his John Wayne impersonation on the Red Line in Syria.

    He is a complete boob. 

    But that is what we should expect from Democrat Presidents when it comes to foreign policy. They always seem to want take us down a notch or two seeing it as some conciliatory step to improve realtions with other countries. All it does is tick off our allies and encourage our enemies to test us.

     

     

     

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from AlleyCatBruin. Show AlleyCatBruin's posts

    Re: What is Obama's End Game Here?

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

    In response to AlleyCatBruin's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to miscricket's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

     

    Yesterday, I watched as President Obama addressed the nation on Syria. For several days now..our elected representatives and senators in Congress have been on the news and giving interviews which expressed a desire that they ( Congress) have a say in any potential military action against Syria.

    Now..most of us who have followed policitics for many years understand these comments for what they are..bluster, posturing and rhetoric. The thought that our current "do-nothing" Congress suddenly wants to be engaged is laughable.

    Well..it seems that Obama is calling their bluff. The President, in a surprise announcement yesterday stated that he would seek Congressional approval for any military strike.

    If Obama truly sticks to this..does anyone care to guess on the over /under any action is actually taken? Why should we as Americans have any faith that Congress will manage to agree on this and take a stand and a vote when they haven't proven to us up to this point that they can agree on anything?

    So this makes Obama one of two things. He is either a brilliant political strategist who is going to prove to America the absolute depths of incompetence in the current Congress...or he is one of the weakest leaders in modern history. Obama's position is clear. The only question is will he follow through.

    I watch this process with interest because at the end of the day, I don't even know how I feel about unilateral military intervention by the US. It's not that I don't think Assad should be punished..it's that I think that this should be something coordinated by the UN. Of course..the UN is even more dysfunctional than Congress...

     

     



    I think President Obama gave fair warning to Syria to not use chemical weapons. He's also said all along that that he wouldn't take action without a coalition and UN approval. He needed to go to Congress, who have pretty much been a "do nothing" bunch. It's the right thing to do. It has been republican Senators "Grumpy" McCain and Lindsey Graham (R-Fabulous) who have been calling for intervention all along. So, let's hear what Congress has to say:)..... 

     

     

    With Conressionally mandated budget cuts to the military (sequester), which passed with a majority of republican votes, I'd be curious to see what they expect from our military in this and any other future uses of military force.

    The republicans clearly are not pro-military with a democrat in the white house.....

     

     

     

     

     

     

    [/QUOTE]


    I find it odd that a presdident that has proudly done whatever he wants with executive orders now is so accepting of constitutional limitations, and wil ldefer t ocongress.

     

    Given Bohner the bonehead is runnign things over there, and the MSM is in Obama's pockets, it is now a lose/lose from the perspective of congressional republicans:  They approve military action, it is on them, they vote against military action, it is on them.

    Basically, congress is in the position of covering Obama's big bluster.

    [/QUOTE]


    Scooter, you hero Reagan and then your other hero Bush 43 made much more use of executive orders than President Obama ever has. But you already knew that, right? lol.

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from ComingLiberalCrackup. Show ComingLiberalCrackup's posts

    Re: What is Obama's End Game Here?




    Scooter, you hero Reagan and then your other hero Bush 43 made much more use of executive orders than President Obama ever has. But you already knew that, right? lol.

     

    [/QUOTE]


    It is not just the raw number of executive orders signed, but the content of these orders and the extent they reflect abuse of executive power and taking over Constitutional authority which belongs to the Legislative branch.

     
  8. This post has been removed.

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: What is Obama's End Game Here?

    In response to AlleyCatBruin's comment:

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to AlleyCatBruin's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

     

    In response to miscricket's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

     

     

    Yesterday, I watched as President Obama addressed the nation on Syria. For several days now..our elected representatives and senators in Congress have been on the news and giving interviews which expressed a desire that they ( Congress) have a say in any potential military action against Syria.

    Now..most of us who have followed policitics for many years understand these comments for what they are..bluster, posturing and rhetoric. The thought that our current "do-nothing" Congress suddenly wants to be engaged is laughable.

    Well..it seems that Obama is calling their bluff. The President, in a surprise announcement yesterday stated that he would seek Congressional approval for any military strike.

    If Obama truly sticks to this..does anyone care to guess on the over /under any action is actually taken? Why should we as Americans have any faith that Congress will manage to agree on this and take a stand and a vote when they haven't proven to us up to this point that they can agree on anything?

    So this makes Obama one of two things. He is either a brilliant political strategist who is going to prove to America the absolute depths of incompetence in the current Congress...or he is one of the weakest leaders in modern history. Obama's position is clear. The only question is will he follow through.

    I watch this process with interest because at the end of the day, I don't even know how I feel about unilateral military intervention by the US. It's not that I don't think Assad should be punished..it's that I think that this should be something coordinated by the UN. Of course..the UN is even more dysfunctional than Congress...

     

     

     



    I think President Obama gave fair warning to Syria to not use chemical weapons. He's also said all along that that he wouldn't take action without a coalition and UN approval. He needed to go to Congress, who have pretty much been a "do nothing" bunch. It's the right thing to do. It has been republican Senators "Grumpy" McCain and Lindsey Graham (R-Fabulous) who have been calling for intervention all along. So, let's hear what Congress has to say:)..... 

     

     

     

    With Conressionally mandated budget cuts to the military (sequester), which passed with a majority of republican votes, I'd be curious to see what they expect from our military in this and any other future uses of military force.

    The republicans clearly are not pro-military with a democrat in the white house.....

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

    [/QUOTE]


    I find it odd that a presdident that has proudly done whatever he wants with executive orders now is so accepting of constitutional limitations, and wil ldefer t ocongress.

     

     

    Given Bohner the bonehead is runnign things over there, and the MSM is in Obama's pockets, it is now a lose/lose from the perspective of congressional republicans:  They approve military action, it is on them, they vote against military action, it is on them.

    Basically, congress is in the position of covering Obama's big bluster.

     

    [/QUOTE]


    Scooter, you hero Reagan and then your other hero Bush 43 made much more use of executive orders than President Obama ever has. But you already knew that, right? lol.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Again, for the millionth time, I don't care what Reagan and Bush did.  Defend Obama's use.

    be a man for a change.

     
  10. This post has been removed.

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from massmoderateJoe. Show massmoderateJoe's posts

    Re: What is Obama's End Game Here?

    In response to miscricket's comment:

     

    Yesterday, I watched as President Obama addressed the nation on Syria. For several days now..our elected representatives and senators in Congress have been on the news and giving interviews which expressed a desire that they ( Congress) have a say in any potential military action against Syria.

    Now..most of us who have followed policitics for many years understand these comments for what they are..bluster, posturing and rhetoric. The thought that our current "do-nothing" Congress suddenly wants to be engaged is laughable.

    Well..it seems that Obama is calling their bluff. The President, in a surprise announcement yesterday stated that he would seek Congressional approval for any military strike.

    If Obama truly sticks to this..does anyone care to guess on the over /under any action is actually taken? Why should we as Americans have any faith that Congress will manage to agree on this and take a stand and a vote when they haven't proven to us up to this point that they can agree on anything?

    So this makes Obama one of two things. He is either a brilliant political strategist who is going to prove to America the absolute depths of incompetence in the current Congress...or he is one of the weakest leaders in modern history. Obama's position is clear. The only question is will he follow through.

    I watch this process with interest because at the end of the day, I don't even know how I feel about unilateral military intervention by the US. It's not that I don't think Assad should be punished..it's that I think that this should be something coordinated by the UN. Of course..the UN is even more dysfunctional than Congress...

     

    I'm going for weakest leader in modern history and here's why.

    Pres. Obama made a rookie mistake with his ill conceived and cocky red line threat.  So now Pres. Assad has called him out on it, even his son 11 yo called him out on a Facebook post to "bring it on".  So does President fall victim to the call out taunts and act stupidly or does he figure out how to redraw his line and engage meaningful international action without a unilateral US strike? 

     

    Our "strong" friends on this issue are few, far between and those that are have their hands tied like, Britain due to the cautious vote by Parliament.  In fact the few friends we have on this issue, like France would most likely be with us at the curb and stay there as we walk off it and into an oncoming bus.

     

    Yes the power of the Presidency takes a hit over his red line debacle and especially the power of this President due to his amateur like mistake.  But we don't need to go into battle when its still the wrong thing just for the Presidency to save face.

     

    Time to write our Congress and tell them no on direct US involvement against the Syrian Government.  Now a deep clandestine operation that blows up their gas stockpiles while President Assad is inspecting them, well that would be a good thing, we just don't need to take credit. 

     



     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from UserName99. Show UserName99's posts

    Re: What is Obama's End Game Here?

    Just because Pres. Obama made a rookie mistake with his red line comment, does not mean we must now rush in and run the risk of becoming Al Qaeda's de facto Air Force.   The rebel factions are reportedly dominated by those with affiliations to Al Qaeda, so any anti-Assad military strikes will benefit  those we are supposedly battling in the "war on terror". 

    We lose if either side in this civil war wins.  Far better to bring the proof of Assad's use of chemical weapons (if it exists) to International courts and brand him a war criminal.

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from tvoter. Show tvoter's posts

    Re: What is Obama's End Game Here?


     

    Lets try logic.

    We have the US and co. stating that Assad's forces used chemical weapons but, they cant really prove it because he bombed the area after the chemical use to destroy the evidence.

    We have Russia and co. that say there is no evidence the syrian govt used chemical weapons and that it could have been the rebels since they were caught with a serin gas cannister 2 weeks ago along the Turkish border. Turkey has yet to release this evidence.

    To me that's a stalemate!

    Logic!

    Who had the most to gain/lose by the use of chemical weapons?

    By every account Assad's forces are advancing in the war and have the upper hand so, for them to use chemical weapons while (winning) seems idiotic since it will likely be met with an attack on them by the US to shift the balance of the war.

    The rebels on the other hand are being driven back and losing ground in the war; they are less trained and less equipped than the regimes forces so, they would welcome an attack by the US on Assads military to try and regain momentum.

    Could it have been a false flag attack?

    If, so did the US know or do we know now?

    I do not think we know; I do think we could be getting played by the rebels who are made up of a lot of foreign fighters who has little connection to the Syrian people that were gassed.

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from tvoter. Show tvoter's posts

    Re: What is Obama's End Game Here?

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

    In response to tvoter's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    Lets try logic.

    We have the US and co. stating that Assad's forces used chemical weapons but, they cant really prove it because he bombed the area after the chemical use to destroy the evidence.

    We have Russia and co. that say there is no evidence the syrian govt used chemical weapons and that it could have been the rebels since they were caught with a serin gas cannister 2 weeks ago along the Turkish border. Turkey has yet to release this evidence.

    To me that's a stalemate!

    Logic!

     




     

    Yeah. Because Russia and Co. always fairly assess situations and most certainly haven't spent the time since the Cold War ended attempting to frustrate our every purpose.

     

    "Logic!"

     [QUOTE]

    Im no fan of Putin or his corrupt politics but, as in any investigation there is almost always definable motive.

    What would be Assads motive for using chemical weapons in a conflct he is winning when the only responses will be negative to his govt!

    That is a valid question.

     
  15. This post has been removed.

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: What is Obama's End Game Here?

    This whole exercise with Syria is further proof that liberals cannot be trusted with positions of power.

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from tvoter. Show tvoter's posts

    Re: What is Obama's End Game Here?

    In response to A_Concerned_Citizen's comment:

    In response to tvoter's comments:

    [QUOTE]


    Im no fan of Putin or his corrupt politics but, as in any investigation there is almost always definable motive.

     

    What would be Assads motive for using chemical weapons in a conflct he is winning when the only responses will be negative to his govt!

    That is a valid question.


    [QUOTE]

    To invoke complete fear by anyone who may even think to challenge the Assad regime.



    But, that is not what is happening. Instead he basically called for a US strike against his military!

    Turkey claims to have arrested syrian rebels with serin gas a couple weeks ago but, refuse to release evidence.

    Assad is a tyrant and a thug but, he is not stupid. The only reason he would do this with any kind of logic is that he hopes a strike by the west will cause the conflict to expand in the middle east to involve potentially Israel, Iran and then........................

     

     

Share