Will the Congress approve military action against Syria

[11B4V]

That's the best he can come up with.

[alfred russel]

I don't see a whole lot of evidence that voting to authorize action against Syria would piss of the base.  Best as I can tell, most people don't really give a shit one way or another if we lob a few cruise missles at Syria (actually invading Syria would be another matter).

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2013/09/03/matt_drudge_asks_why_would_anyone_vote_republican.html

And apparently the online poll he has shows 10-1 against involvement.

[11B4V]

I'm not Ottoman Empire. 

"I of course realize that many people around the country are concerned that an intervention in Syria would devolve into another Siege of Belgrade, but I can assure you that this operation will be swift, decisive, and will in no way resemble the Ottoman Empire's ill-advised invasion of Nándorfehérvár," Obama told the assembled White House Press Corps. "Our mission in Syria is fundamentally different from that of the Ottomans 550 years ago—there will be absolutely no boots on the ground, the attacks will only last for two or three days at the most, and we will, under no circumstances, be deploying a fleet of 200 galleys and 300 cannons."

"I can promise you this: My administration and I will not repeat the mistakes of Sultan Mehmed II," Obama continued. "Believe me, we have all learned the lessons from the campaign to subjugate the Kingdom of Hungary following the fall of Constantinople."

[jimmy olsen]

 

[jimmy olsen]

Lol

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics-live/the-senates-syria-hearing-live-updates/?id=ed01ca14-222b-4a23-b12c-c0b0d9d4fe0a

[dps]

I don't see a whole lot of evidence that voting to authorize action against Syria would piss of the base.  Best as I can tell, most people don't really give a shit one way or another if we lob a few cruise missles at Syria (actually invading Syria would be another matter).

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2013/09/03/matt_drudge_asks_why_would_anyone_vote_republican.html

And apparently the online poll he has shows 10-1 against involvement.

Yeah, I don't doubt that if you ask people their opinion, most are against military action against Syria, but that doesn't mean that they really care one way or the other.  Just like if you ask me if I think that Georgia should fire Mark Richt because of the loss to Clemson, I'd say of they shouldn't, it would be silly--but on the other hand I don't care if they do.

[CountDeMoney]

Saw an interesting poll stat earlier tonight: in December 2012, use of force against Syria was polled positively at 65%.  How it's dropped so much, especially in light of chemical weapons use, is an interesting question.

[citizen k]

Saw an interesting poll stat earlier tonight: in December 2012, use of force against Syria was polled positively at 65%.  How it's dropped so much, especially in light of chemical weapons use, is an interesting question.

The "rebels are Al- Qaeda" fearmongering.

[Phillip V]

Saw an interesting poll stat earlier tonight: in December 2012, use of force against Syria was polled positively at 65%.  How it's dropped so much, especially in light of chemical weapons use, is an interesting question.

Post-election optimism.

Approval of the economy, foreign policy, Obama performance, etc. have also plummeted since then.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president_obama_job_approval-1044.html

[derspiess]

Obama's credibility is not on the line.  Because he said so.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2013/09/04/president_obama_my_credibility_is_not_on_the_line.html

The buck does not stop with him-- it stops with 98% of the world's population.

[Razgovory]

I would have thought you agreed with on that.  After all, you don't think he has any credibility.

[derspiess]

I would have thought you agreed with on that.

In a sense, I do.  At least, I wouldn't hold it against him if he decided not to go with military action as I don't believe we gain anything from it (side note, I believe he does have the power to act if he decides to do so, with or without congressional approval). 

But it comes across as spineless to claim that everyone else's credibility is on the line (including Congress's!)-- but not his!

[Eddie Teach]

Yeah, I don't doubt that if you ask people their opinion, most are against military action against Syria, but that doesn't mean that they really care one way or the other.  Just like if you ask me if I think that Georgia should fire Mark Richt because of the loss to Clemson, I'd say of they shouldn't, it would be silly--but on the other hand I don't care if they do.

I think they need to stop scheduling tough teams first week of the season. They're never ready.

[KRonn]

I haven't been for this action in Syria to be taken unilaterally by the US, or with just a few willing nations. I'm very wary of the amendment that McCain had added which aims towards leveling the field between Assad and the Rebels which means the US can take much broader action. Especially if the Assad regime is weakened enough by US action and falls, then the US may send in many thousands of troops to secure the WMD stockpiles. That can be considered a non-combat action so passes muster with the spirit of the action being debated by Congress, just securing the sites, but obviously that will entail fighting with Hezbollah, Iranian fighters and other factions and I'd think likely over a long time period.

[Tamas]

I haven't been for this action in Syria to be taken unilaterally by the US, or with just a few willing nations. I'm very wary of the amendment that McCain had added which aims towards leveling the field between Assad and the Rebels which means the US can take much broader action. Especially if the Assad regime is weakened enough by US action and falls, then the US may send in many thousands of troops to secure the WMD stockpiles. That can be considered a non-combat action so passes muster with the spirit of the action being debated by Congress, just securing the sites, but obviously that will entail fighting with Hezbollah, Iranian fighters and other factions and I'd think likely over a long time period.

actually, just flying in when major fighting stops, landing airborne at the known chemical storage sites, grabbing whatever is there, and then getting the fuck out (shooting anybody who raises an eyebrow in the process), never looking back would be a great idea. I don`t think the US has the balls for it though.