Is @barackobama just planning to bomb #Syria anyway?

You know who should be most infuriated by this?

A senior State Department official tells Fox News the president’s decision to take military action in Syria still stands, and will indeed be carried out, regardless of whether Congress votes next week to approve the use of such force.

The official said that every major player on the National Security Council – including the commander-in-chief – was in accord last night on the need for military action, and that the president’s decision to seek a congressional debate and vote was a surprise to most if not all of them. However, the aide insisted the request for Congress to vote did not supplant the president’s earlier decision to use force in Syria, only delayed its implementation.

True antiwar progressives. And no, I’m not trying to be cute. This is a smack in the face to those people – and while I don’t normally care, I can’t say that I’m fond of the implication that Barack Obama can just ignore us, too.

Via AoSHQ.

12 thoughts on “Is @barackobama just planning to bomb #Syria anyway?”

  1. We cannot get involved in Syria’s Civil War. The Congressional Switchboard is 202-224-3121. Tell your Representative and Senator to vote HELL NO!!! Then we can impeach the SOB when he does bomb Syria.

    1. Presidents have done airstrikes without Congressional Approval before, heck Obama did it in Libya, as did Reagan.
      That being said I want Boehner to vote no, force Obama to go it alone, declare to the World that his man is only our President for now. When he’s gone there WILL BE a new sheriff, the Likes of Assad will have to straighten up then.

      1. Several things come to mind.
        Obama, legally – since the War Powers Act is still around – has 90 days or so. That’s enough time to do “something wimpy and surgical”, which is what Obama has *signaled* he’s going to do.
        Bush 2.0 (a.k.a. Boooosh, a.k.a. Chimpy McHalliburton) had the sense to go to Congress over Iraq *up front*, but .. it wasn’t surgical or wimpy.
        Thus far, the Pavlovian dogs of anti-war aren’t quite sure what to do, but .. what happens if some of Moe Lane’s readers put up a Facebook (or other media) status to the effect of “No blood for Syrian oil” …?
        Can we steal a march on their dogs? Can we peel some off?

        1. Nope.

          Afterall, it was the oil that they were objecting to, not the blood being spilled. If it had been “Blood for Wind” they wouldn’t have said a word.

          1. There’s more on the Left than just greens, Tom, but .. it’s a valid point…
            The thing is, there’s a large segment of non-thinking anti-war reactionaries out there; we ought to be able to use some of them to embarrass Obama… and set up some very strange 2014 debate.

        2. Code Pink is actually protesting Syria right now though. I mean not nearly as voraciously as they did Bush, but still.


            Googling turns up some stories with Medea Benjamin & Justin Raimondo bewailing the lack of members and money for the antiwar groups these days, but there are still a few True Believers out there. The stories point out that military action has only recently come up as anything possible; mostly, the concept of anything actually being done has been quietly shelved.

            Significant protests do take a while to put together; if a debate actually takes place in Congress when they return, I would expect some sort of protesting to occur. It won’t be anything like what we saw in 2003, but it’ll be something, at least.

  2. Laughing Wolf has a very good article on cascade effects over at Blackfive, check it out:

    Remember cascade effects can occur with systems other than Human interactions, I’ve been dealing with a software cascade effect at work for several weeks now. One seeming minor error begets further errors in related software. To put it Bluntly It sucks. But think of cascade effects with diseases and suddenly you find your blood running cold. The ultimate long term effects can be devastating. This is where we at now.

    1. Yep, although Laughing Wolf does point out by inclusion that it’s not a new thing .. “Alas, Babylon” is hardly a new book.
      What surprised me most about the Laughing Wolf piece is he (or she) never mentioned Franz Ferdinand. Not sure why that omission, seems kind of obvious to me that he should be listed.

  3. Boehner needs to hold a vote, Republicans should vote no, then we get the Democrats on record – who is for Obama and his policies and who isn’t…makes the Dems dance a little. Boehner is providing cover for the Dems by not holding a vote.

Comments are closed.