Sunday, September 1, 2013
Obama leaving door open to Syria strike, even if Congress votes no
President Obama apparently is leaving the door open to moving ahead
with a military strike on Syria even if Congress votes against it,
adding to the confusion over the president’s evolving position.
The president, in a surprise decision Saturday, announced he would seek a vote in Congress on launching a military attack against the Assad regime.
One senior State Department official, though, told Fox News that the president’s goal to take military action will indeed be carried out, regardless of whether Congress votes to approve the use of force.
Other senior administration officials said Obama is merely leaving the door open to that possibility. They say he would prefer that Congress approve a military attack on the Assad regime, in response to its alleged use of chemical weapons, and will wait to see what Congress does before making any final decisions on authorizing military force.
Yet the possibility that Obama would move ahead without the support of Congress is sure to stir confusion among lawmakers, who had – for the most part – applauded his decision to seek their input first, though others claimed he was “abdicating his responsibility” by punting to Congress. It would raise questions about why he decided to seek congressional input at all, after having moved military assets into position immediately, and then waited days and possibly weeks for a debate in Washington.
The senior State Department official told Fox News that every major player on the National Security Council – including the commander-in-chief – was in accord Friday 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 Fox News, 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.
Other senior administration officials, outside of the Department of State, would not confirm as much, telling reporters only that the door had been left open for the president to proceed without congressional authorization.
This was confided by way of seeking to refute suggestions that Secretary of State John Kerry “lost” to the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Martin Dempsey in the interagency process. “Absolutely untrue,” the Kerry aide said, adding that everything Kerry said in his dramatic remarks on Friday was after “fully consulting with the White House.”
The State Department official emphasized that all of the president’s national security advisers were in agreement as of Friday night on the need to proceed with strikes – and that the president ultimately will.
At the least, Obama’s remarks do appear to leave him wiggle room. In the Rose Garden, Obama stressed that he believes he does “have the authority” to carry out an attack without the support of Congress. He said, though, that “the country will be stronger” if Congress weighs in.
A White House statement released on Saturday, following a phone call between Obama and French President Francois Hollande, gave another indication as to the president’s intentions. The statement said the two leaders agree “that the international community must deliver a resolute message to the Assad regime” and that “those who violate this international norm will be held accountable by the world.”
Fox News’ James Rosen and Ed Henry contributed to this report.
The president, in a surprise decision Saturday, announced he would seek a vote in Congress on launching a military attack against the Assad regime.
One senior State Department official, though, told Fox News that the president’s goal to take military action will indeed be carried out, regardless of whether Congress votes to approve the use of force.
Other senior administration officials said Obama is merely leaving the door open to that possibility. They say he would prefer that Congress approve a military attack on the Assad regime, in response to its alleged use of chemical weapons, and will wait to see what Congress does before making any final decisions on authorizing military force.
Yet the possibility that Obama would move ahead without the support of Congress is sure to stir confusion among lawmakers, who had – for the most part – applauded his decision to seek their input first, though others claimed he was “abdicating his responsibility” by punting to Congress. It would raise questions about why he decided to seek congressional input at all, after having moved military assets into position immediately, and then waited days and possibly weeks for a debate in Washington.
The senior State Department official told Fox News that every major player on the National Security Council – including the commander-in-chief – was in accord Friday 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 Fox News, 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.
Other senior administration officials, outside of the Department of State, would not confirm as much, telling reporters only that the door had been left open for the president to proceed without congressional authorization.
This was confided by way of seeking to refute suggestions that Secretary of State John Kerry “lost” to the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Martin Dempsey in the interagency process. “Absolutely untrue,” the Kerry aide said, adding that everything Kerry said in his dramatic remarks on Friday was after “fully consulting with the White House.”
The State Department official emphasized that all of the president’s national security advisers were in agreement as of Friday night on the need to proceed with strikes – and that the president ultimately will.
At the least, Obama’s remarks do appear to leave him wiggle room. In the Rose Garden, Obama stressed that he believes he does “have the authority” to carry out an attack without the support of Congress. He said, though, that “the country will be stronger” if Congress weighs in.
A White House statement released on Saturday, following a phone call between Obama and French President Francois Hollande, gave another indication as to the president’s intentions. The statement said the two leaders agree “that the international community must deliver a resolute message to the Assad regime” and that “those who violate this international norm will be held accountable by the world.”
Fox News’ James Rosen and Ed Henry contributed to this report.
Friday, August 30, 2013
British Parliament Debates War With Syria, U.S. Congress Vacations
August 29, 2013 by Sam Rolley
As chatter about the prospect of the United States going
maverick in Syria continues, the Nation’s international peers are
receiving praise from some U.S. lawmakers for taking a more thoughtful
approach to intervening in the Middle Eastern conflict.Representative Scott Rigell (R-Va.) lauded the British Parliament on Thursday, noting that U.S. lawmakers are still on recess— despite the President’s war rhetoric— while the Brit lawmakers have robustly debated a resolution on military intervention in Syria.
The Parliament, he said, is having a debate, while the United States is not. “Given the history our two Nations,’ he continued, “there is a bit of irony here.”
Rigell said that he is happy to see that the evident slowing in British momentum towards military action has made the White House pull back “just a bit.” The lawmaker also noted that Congressional approval prior to intervention would be a sign of strength for the U.S.
Senator Ted Cruz (R-Texas) also noted the absence of Congressional debate on the matter.
Cruz tweeted:
Thursday, August 29, 2013
NY Times: Putin Incensed by Obama's 'Bored Kid' Remark
A comment by President Obama that Vladimir Putin looked "like the bored
kid in the back of the classroom" apparently "infuriated" the Russian
president, The New York Times reported Wednesday.
The comment came Aug. 9 at a news conference concerning a showdown with Putin over Edward Snowden, the former defense contractor who leaked top-secret details of the National Security Agency's surveillance programs.
Putin ultimately gave Snowden temporary asylum over the objections of Obama, and the president was asked about his working relationship with the Russian leader.
Editor's Note: 22 Hidden Taxes and Fees Set to Hit You With Obamacare. Read the Guide to Protect Yourself.
"I know the press likes to focus on body language, and he's got that kind of slouch, looking like the bored kid in the back of the classroom. But the truth is that when we're in conversations together, oftentimes it's very productive," Obama said.
The president went on to say that he didn't have "a bad personal relationship with Putin," and that "when we have conversations, they’re candid, they’re blunt; oftentimes, they’re constructive."
But Putin was not amused — and the remark just "intensified" Putin's suspicion of Obama, as did his abrupt cancellation of a meeting scheduled for next week in Moscow, The Times reported.
"The comment infuriated" Putin, The Times said, citing an unnamed Russian official.
© 2013 Newsmax. All rights reserved.
Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Obama-infuriated-Putin-bored/2013/08/28/id/522798?s=al&promo_code=14B1C-1#ixzz2dP4BDXxm
Urgent: Should Obamacare Be Repealed? Vote Here Now!
The comment came Aug. 9 at a news conference concerning a showdown with Putin over Edward Snowden, the former defense contractor who leaked top-secret details of the National Security Agency's surveillance programs.
Putin ultimately gave Snowden temporary asylum over the objections of Obama, and the president was asked about his working relationship with the Russian leader.
Editor's Note: 22 Hidden Taxes and Fees Set to Hit You With Obamacare. Read the Guide to Protect Yourself.
"I know the press likes to focus on body language, and he's got that kind of slouch, looking like the bored kid in the back of the classroom. But the truth is that when we're in conversations together, oftentimes it's very productive," Obama said.
The president went on to say that he didn't have "a bad personal relationship with Putin," and that "when we have conversations, they’re candid, they’re blunt; oftentimes, they’re constructive."
But Putin was not amused — and the remark just "intensified" Putin's suspicion of Obama, as did his abrupt cancellation of a meeting scheduled for next week in Moscow, The Times reported.
"The comment infuriated" Putin, The Times said, citing an unnamed Russian official.
© 2013 Newsmax. All rights reserved.
Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Obama-infuriated-Putin-bored/2013/08/28/id/522798?s=al&promo_code=14B1C-1#ixzz2dP4BDXxm
Urgent: Should Obamacare Be Repealed? Vote Here Now!
Biden Said He Will Impeach The President For War Not Approved By Congress… In 2007
August 28, 2013 by Sam Rolley
If President Barack Obama launches an attack on Syria
without full Congressional approval, do you think Vice President Joe
Biden will attempt to have him impeached?On Tuesday, we brought you Constitution-friendly Obama, circa 2007; today, we will revisit a Biden of the same vintage.
In 2007, Senator Biden said that he would absolutely do everything possible to impeach President George W. Bush if he attacked Iran without first gaining Congressional approval.
Via Seacoast Online, November 29, 2007:
Presidential hopeful Delaware Sen. Joe Biden stated unequivocally that he will move to impeach President Bush if he bombs Iran without first gaining congressional approval.Biden spent a great deal of time talking about illegal wars and impeaching President Bush around that time.
Biden spoke in front of a crowd of approximately 100 at a candidate forum held Thursday at Seacoast Media Group. The forum focused on the Iraq war and foreign policy. When an audience member expressed fear of a war with Iran, Biden said he does not typically engage in threats, but had no qualms about issuing a direct warning to the Oval Office.
“The president has no authority to unilaterally attack Iran, and if he does, as Foreign Relations Committee chairman, I will move to impeach,” said Biden, whose words were followed by a raucous applause from the local audience.
Biden said he is in the process of meeting with constitutional law experts to prepare a legal memorandum saying as much and intends to send it to the president.
Chris Matthews: “You said that if the President of the United States had launched an attack on Iran without congressional approval that would have been an impeachable offense. Do you want to review that comment you made? Well how do you stand on that now?”
Biden: “Yes I do. I want to stand by the comment I made. The reason I made the comment was as a warning. I don’t say those things lightly, Chris, you’ve known me for a long time. I was chairman of the judiciary committee for 17 years or its ranking member. I teach separation of powers and constitutional law. This is something I know. So I got together and brought a group of constitutional scholars together to write a piece that I’m going to deliver to the whole United State Senate pointing out the President has no constitutional authority…to take this nation to war against a county of 70 million people unless we’re attacked or unless there is proof we are about to be attacked. And if he does, if he does, I would move to impeach him. The House obviously has to do that but I would lead an effort to impeach him. The reason for my doing that, I don’t say it lightly, I don’t say it lightly. I say it because they should understand that what they were threatening, what they were saying, what it was adding up to be, what it looked like to the rest of the world we were about to do would be the most disastrous thing that could be done in this moment in our history that I could think of.”
Tuesday, August 27, 2013
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
-
Tit for Tat ? ROCHESTER, N.Y. (AP) — A statue of abolitionist Frederick Douglass was ripped from its base in Rochester on the an...
-
NEW YORK (AP) — As New York City faced one of its darkest days with the death toll from the coronavirus surging past 4,000 — more th...