"45 percent don’t know enough to have an opinion."
This is the key number. It makes all the other moot.
What the fuck are you talking...you are the 45%, ass-hump.
"45 percent don’t know enough to have an opinion."
This is the key number. It makes all the other moot.
And he's wrong. The far left is getting as crazy as the far right.
Obama has been consistent about not wanting to expand our military footprint and has acted that way for five years.
We are not putting boots on the ground. We've had opportunities for over two years and haven't done it. Two years ago we probably could have put a few troops in as advisors and added some hardware and turned the war, but we didn't.
It's extremist conspiracy theory to think Obama wants to send troops. Sorry, the left is creating their own version of anti-Neocons.
More to the point, his aides are making clear that Obama does not view the vote as binding, as Time reports:
"To make matters more complicated, Obama's aides made clear that the President's search for affirmation from Congress would not be binding. He might still attack Syria even if Congress issues a rejection."
It's certainly preferable to have the president seek Congressional approval than not seek it before involving the US in yet another Middle East war of choice, but that's only true if the vote is deemed to be something more than an empty, symbolic ritual. To declare ahead of time that the debate the President has invited and the Congressional vote he sought are nothing more than non-binding gestures - they will matter only if the outcome is what the President wants it to be - is to display a fairly strong contempt for both democracy and the Constitution.
I don't know how many people have to say,"we aren't putting boots on the ground in Syria" before you believe, but pick a number and we'll starting counting.
President Barack Obama has said he only wants to undertake “limited” strikes against the regime of Bashar al-Assad in Syria. But the administration’s draft proposal for a congressional resolution authorizing the use of military force would grant Obama the authority to do way more than that.
“The draft resolution is very broad,” Democratic Maryland Rep. Elijah Cummings to reporters following a classified briefing on Syria. “The president said this effort would be limited in scope and duration and I don’t know that the authorization is that limited.”
Cummings isn’t the only lawmaker concerned about how far the administration’s proposal goes. NBC News reports that Judiciary Committee chair Senator Patrick Leahy of Vermont told reporters that the draft was too open ended, saying “I know it will be amended in the Senate.”
“I’m concerned at this point it’s too open ended,” Leahy said.
http://tv.msnbc.com/2013/09/01/congress-to-amend-obamas-broad-syria-strike-plan/In other words, though the administration has publicly said it is seeking Congress’ approval for a limited strike on Syria, it’s proposal would grant Obama authority for a much more open-ended mission—one that ultimately could include boots on the ground, if Obama decided it were necessary. As written, the draft language would also approve more than just an attack on Assad, but on any of Syria’s regional allies, or even the Syrian rebels if Obama decided it were necessary.
“As the history of the 9/11 AUMF shows, and as prior AUMFs show (think about the Gulf of Tonkin), a President will interpret an AUMF for all it is worth, and then some,” writes Goldsmith.
So explain why the US, under Obama, has helped to train and arm the rebels fighting in Syria?
What sucks are extremists on the left or the right:
"We’re not considering any open-ended commitment,” the president said, according to a White House pool report. “We’re not considering any boots on the ground approach.”