Obama's air strike plans in disarray after Britain rejects use of force in Syria

[BobStackFan4Life]

White House forced to consider unilateral strikes against Assad regime after British PM unexpectedly loses key motion on intervention

Hours before the vote, the chairman of the Senate intelligence committee, Diane Feinstein, expressed confidence that Britain would join any strike.

Feinstein, a Democrat and staunch administration ally, told Time magazine: "I think the UK makes a difference. I think if the president were to decide to go there's a very high likelihood that the United Kingdom would be with us."

The timing of the British vote, 272 to 285 against the government, was disastrous for Obama. Less than 30 minutes after the vote, senior intelligence officials began a conference call with key members of Congress, in an attempt to keep US lawmakers on side.

Congressional leaders and the chairs and ranking members of national security committees were briefed by the most senior US intelligence officials, amid signs that some of the support for military strikes against Syria was fading.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/30/obama-strike-syria-britain-vote

 

[PhDeac]

I think The Guardian is overstating the importance of Parliament here.

 

[BobStackFan4Life]

Yes, it would seem the US is determined to go it alone. At least we'll have the French cheering us on:

This from Reuters:

The French president, Francois Hollande, said the British parliamentary vote against taking military action in Syria would not affect France's will to act to punish Bashar al-Assad's government for an apparent chemical weapons attack on civilians.

Hollande told the daily Le Monde in an interview that he supported taking "firm" punitive action over an attack he said had caused "irreparable" harm to the Syrian people and said he would work closely with France's allies.

 

[jhmd2000]

I think The Guardian is overstating the importance of Parliament here.

That's unpossible.

 

[ImTheCaptain]

why are we trying to so hard to do this? so goddamn frustrating.

 

[BobStackFan4Life]

NBC poll: Nearly 80 percent want congressional approval on Syria
a whopping 79 percent of respondents – including nearly seven-in-10 Democrats and 90 percent of Republicans – say the president should be required to receive congressional approval before taking any action.

The poll also finds that only 21 percent think taking action against the Syrian government is in the national interest of the United States. By comparison, 33 percent disagree and 45 percent don’t know enough to have an opinion.

And just 27 percent say that U.S. military force will improve the situation for Syrian civilians, versus 41 percent who say it won’t.

http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/08/30/20256971-nbc-poll-nearly-80-percent-want-congressional-approval-on-syria?lite

 

[RJKarl]

"45 percent don’t know enough to have an opinion."

This is the key number. It makes all the other moot.

 

[RacerDeac]

"45 percent don’t know enough to have an opinion."

This is the key number. It makes all the other moot.

No, it means that those 79% who want Congressional approval are 100% correct. The case for bombing Syria should be made by Obama and his war-mongering minions to those that represent us, the 45% who don't know and the 55% who think they do, so that we can all understand why the hell the winner of the Nobel Peace Prize wants to bomb the shit out of yet another country.

 

[jhmd2000]

"45 percent don’t know enough to have an opinion."

This is the key number. It makes all the other moot.

Not true. Obama got more votes than that.

 

[BobStackFan4Life]

Nancy Pelosi, now a war hawk

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi pressed top administration officials Thursday night to take military action to punish Syrian President Bashar Assad in response to reports that he used chemical weapons in his nation’s ongoing civil war.

“It is clear that the American people are weary of war. However, Assad gassing his own people is an issue of our national security, regional stability and global security,” Pelosi said in a statement after the 90-minute conference call with members of the National Security Council and 26 high-ranking lawmakers.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/08/nancy-pelosi-barack-obama-syria-96065.html#ixzz2dSJJcCmt

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/08/nancy-pelosi-barack-obama-syria-96065.html?hp=f2

 

[ImTheCaptain]

our national security? wtf? what the hell is going on?

Is there more to this story or does our Congress really think the USA is this important?

 

[jhmd2000]

No, it means that those 79% who want Congressional approval are 100% correct. The case for bombing Syria should be made by Obama and his war-mongering minions to those that represent us, the 45% who don't know and the 55% who think they so, so that we can all understand why the hell the winner of the Nobel Peace Prize wants to bomb the shit out of yet another country.

Sure, people hate it, but maybe we can pass this War by reconciliation, and then have it upheld as taxation.

 

[WFFaithful]

Facepalm Obama

 

[bigdoublezero]

This has a bit more context on public opinion in the matter of war and congressional approval.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...gress-but-want-it-to-approve-military-action/

 

[RacerDeac]

This has a bit more context on public opinion in the matter of war and congressional approval.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...gress-but-want-it-to-approve-military-action/

Cliffs notes: We tend to like checks and balances in our government.

 

[PhillyDeac]

This is unreal.

Obama is going to bomb Syria to 'Send a message' that you can't 'Blur American Red Lines'. However, this action of bombing is not expected to change the status of civil war in Syria.

Translation: We are going to blow up some buildings to scare Iran and let them know if they don't stop with their Nuclear research, they're next.

I still have yet to see where obama says "The purpose of this is to....." So far, i've come up with 'blow shit up'

 

[ConnorEl]

France is with us. Maybe.

 

[DiegoTiger]

We shouldn't do anything unless all those fuckers in Europe are in as well.....can't keep policing the world.

 

[BobStackFan4Life]

Rowena Mason @rowenamason

Cameron told Ed Miliband "you are letting down America" when informed over phone on Weds Labour would not back Syria motion - Labour sources

Nicholas Watt @nicholaswatt

and then PM told @Ed_Miliband: 'you are siding with Lavrov' – Russian FM @rowenamason

http://www.theguardian.com/world/middle-east-live/2013/aug/30/syria-us-military-britain-live

 

[RJKarl]

This is unreal.

Obama is going to bomb Syria to 'Send a message' that you can't 'Blur American Red Lines'. However, this action of bombing is not expected to change the status of civil war in Syria.

Translation: We are going to blow up some buildings to scare Iran and let them know if they don't stop with their Nuclear research, they're next.

I still have yet to see where obama says "The purpose of this is to....." So far, i've come up with 'blow shit up'

The purpose is to make sure despots don't use chemical weapons. If we don't do anything about this, why wouldn't they bomb other countries with chemical weapons?

If we take out their air capabilities, the next guy won't do it.

This will help keep from getting involved in a more serious way.