Obama Still Not Taking Congressional Approval for Syrian War Seriously

obama poster

Congress is celebrating a little too hard because Obama agreed to ask them for approval of military action in Syria. This request was likely not prompted by any of the Congressional demands from both parties. It was most likely prompted by the UK dropping out and the unpopularity of proposed military action in Syria.

And Obama isn’t treating the request with any great seriousness. His Rose Garden speech asserted that he could go to war without Congress but that he wants to present a united front to the world.

It’s a condescending statement that treats Congressional approval for military action as a consultation, a symbolic formality

But having made my decision as Commander-in-Chief based on what I am convinced is our national security interests, I’m also mindful that I’m the President of the world’s oldest constitutional democracy. I’ve long believed that our power is rooted not just in our military might, but in our example as a government of the people, by the people, and for the people. And that’s why I’ve made a second decision: I will seek authorization for the use of force from the American people’s representatives in Congress.

Obama presents it as his second decision. His first decision is to go to war. His second decision is to ask Congress to ratify the decision he already made.

Over the last several days, we’ve heard from members of Congress who want their voices to be heard. I absolutely agree.

Voices being heard is not the issue here. There’s a legal requirement in place that Obama is choosing not to acknowledge, while speaking in the same condescending tones he uses for voters.

I’m confident in the case our government has made without waiting for U.N. inspectors. I’m comfortable going forward without the approval of a United Nations Security Council that, so far, has been completely paralyzed and unwilling to hold Assad accountable.

This is actually a good deal more unilateral and cowboyish than Bush, who at least tried to make a case to the Security Council first and waited for months and months while the UN inspectors and Saddam played a game of tag.

Obama seems barely willing to wait a week.

As a consequence, many people have advised against taking this decision to Congress, and undoubtedly, they were impacted by what we saw happen in the United Kingdom this week when the Parliament of our closest ally failed to pass a resolution with a similar goal, even as the Prime Minister supported taking action.

I’d like to know who these people are.

Yet, while I believe I have the authority to carry out this military action without specific congressional authorization, I know that the country will be stronger if we take this course, and our actions will be even more effective.

So Obama reduces Congress to a consultative body for his actions whose approval is merely symbolic. Sadly he’s confusing America with a monarchy. And the media is letting him get away with it.

So to all members of Congress of both parties, I ask you to take this vote for our national security. I am looking forward to the debate. And in doing so, I ask you, members of Congress, to consider that some things are more important than partisan differences or the politics of the moment.

Ultimately, this is not about who occupies this office at any given time; it’s about who we are as a country. I believe that the people’s representatives must be invested in what America does abroad, and now is the time to show the world that America keeps our commitments.

That’s ironic coming from a party that built its recent rep on a partisan attack on an Iraq War that they initially supported and then disavowed for political reasons.

But as with his insane spending sprees and the debt limit, Obama confuses his commitments with America’s commitments.

America didn’t commit to a Syrian Red Line. Obama did. If Obama had asked Congress earlier for an authorization of force in case Assad uses WMDs, then there would be an American commitment.

As of now, it’s only an Obamerican commitment. And Obama’s people are already saying that his Majesty will do what he wants, regardless of what Congress says.

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.

“That’s going to happen, anyway,” the source told me, adding that that was why the president, in his rose Garden remarks, was careful to establish that he believes he has the authority to launch such strikes even without congressional authorization

How unilateral.


    Obama may believe he has the authority to start a war, but it’s interesting that he seems oblivious to the political risk should he lose the vote in Congress and then go to war anyway. He might have been better advised, from the standpoint of getting away with yet another violation of the Constitution, to simply launch the attack and then count on the Left-media to cover for him. To ask Congress for approval is to tacitly admit their approval is required; apparently Obama believes he can request approval and then go forward even if his request is denied.

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Bryan-Schmick/100000836170959 Bryan Schmick

      If congress says no, he gets another political talking point saying the R’s support the killing of little people (he’ll conveniently forget any D no votes). It won’t matter that he himself supported allowing Saddam to do the same. He’s counting on his water carriers in the media to support him.

      Either way, it’s interesting to see what order he seeks approval (or sharing the blame):
      1) The UN
      2) Leading elements of NATO
      3) Congress (i.e. the American people and the constitution)
      One way or the other, he claims the right to overrule everyone.

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Bryan-Schmick/100000836170959 Bryan Schmick

      The president is seeking a political talking point. If congress says no, then he can claim the Rs support killing kids (while ignoring any D no vote and his own support of allowing Iraq to kill kids).

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Bryan-Schmick/100000836170959 Bryan Schmick

    It’s interesting to see the use of force approval chain:
    1) The UN
    2) Major NATO countries
    3) Congress (i.e. the American people and the constitution)
    Either way, he maintains the right to overrule all three.

  • JacksonPearson

    On the Syrian issue, the U.S. Constitution is on Congress’s side and not the Executive Branch. Other than idle face saving rhetoric coming from Obama, Congress has the first, and last word about waging war against a sovereign nation, that did not attack the United States.

    If Obama can’t make a case before Congress and is instead dismissed by them, then if he dishonestly decides to go it alone, he’s then wide open for impeachment, high crimes and misdemeanour’s and possibly war crimes in the international court.

    • Moa

      Remember, the Democrats see the Constitution as a “now outdated historical document”. That’s why they believe they have the authority for the President to wage war.

      Once you understand and accept that the Democrat politicians do not believe in the Constitution and act and legislate accordingly, then their actions become more predictable.

  • onecornpone

    I’m sure the Mc Loon faction is raring to put the muscle to those unruly TEA Party peeps who might just speak up on behalf of WE the People!

    IMO we should arm both sides to the teeth, guard all the major exits and enjoy the show.

    As a friend of mine predicted a few days ago, this will all probably come to a head on or around Sept 11. Benghazi WHAT???

  • Cionaedh MacantSaoir

    In 2008, when Barack Obama was campaigning for the American presidency in Berlin, he derided and decried the “unilateralism” of Present Bush in attacking Iraq. NB: If recruiting a coalition of over 40 sovereign states to take out Saddam Hussein was “unilateralism”, then what Barack Obama is doing now is geopolitical masturbation.

  • Muck Fuslims

    The ONLY reason Hussein-Obama wants to attack Syria is to place his Muslim Brotherhood family in charg just like in Tunesia, Libya, and Egypt. What good has he done for the U.S?…….none, but his support is always there for the MB!

  • cathy

    Repeat after me Mr. President. WE! WE! WE! OUR! OUR! OUR!

    Democrat says Obama risks IMPEACHMENT if he acts against Syria without congressional approval
    August 30th, 2013

    Kucinich also takes issue with how Obama phrased his statement earlier today when he said “I meant what I said, I have not made a final decision.” Kucinich says it’s not ‘I, the president’ but rather it’s ‘WE the people’ who formed the Constitution and it dictates that only Congress can take this country to war.


    31 Aug 2013

    President Barack Obama referred to the country’s troops as “MY MILITARY” in Friday remarks about how the United States may respond to the alleged use of chemical weapons by the Assad regime in Syria that Obama asserted violated international norms.

    “Now, I have not made a final decision about various actions that might be taken to help enforce that norm,” Obama said. “But as I’ve already said, I have had MY MILITARY and our team look at a wide range of options. We have consulted with allies. We’ve consulted with Congress. We have been in conversations with all the interested parties.”

    Read more:

  • Nameless Cynic

    Man, you are SO CUTE!

    If Obama had dropped bombs on Syria, you’d be screaming and crying that he was a dictator and a tyrant, and needed to be impeached.

    Instead, he asked Congress to make a decision (oh, and had the AUDACITY to express his own opinion on it, as if he was as good as OTHER people), and you’re saying that… well, that he’s a dictator, and that he’s Machiavellian, and you leave it to the comment section to recommend impeachment.

    And if the President of the United States had dropped bombs on the Middle East, and followed it with ground troops and set up an invasion which lasted for a decade or more at the cost of thousands of American lives and trillions of dollars, you’d have probably called him a war criminal and demanded his immediate imprisonment… oh, no, wait. Sorry. You didn’t, did you?

    Oh, incidentally, I really like it where you talked about “his insane spending sprees and the debt limit.” That’s cute, too. I would guess that you’re aware that the economy is currently $652 billion higher than its 2007 peak, and the federal budget deficit is has shrunk in half since 2008. So, really, that’s not the best thing to complain about, is it?