FDL has one here.
And TPM has another one going.
Get your war on.
I want a “no” on this. Obama can’t both claim rule-of-international-law and also punt on UN approval. He CAN make a huge stink about the fact that the UN is wussing out.
I actually suspect 11-dimensional chess here — being turned down by Congress gets him a free pass on his red line remarks, and also makes the GYWO wing of the R party look like a bunch of fools (“Obama’s such a coward, he wouldn’t even start a war that we weren’t willing to authorize.”????). At least, I can hope, can’t I?
dr2chase – on the comments on the local news page, everything with the mention of Obama gets some tea-bag, anti-Obama comment (even at his last birthday, was a negative public opinion post with one of the random, anti-Obama topics such as birth certificate, killed the economy, etc.)
All that, to say that the page has the story that Obama is going to Congress for authorization. True to form, there is one comment, something about Obama should have kept his mouth shut before announcing his BIG plans.
I admit to mixed feelings but also note how readily Bush took a mild UN approval and spun a world-wide coalition hallucination. But definitely see the foundation being laid for denying approval and then blaming Obama for the results.
Also see the saber rattling that if Bush had warned Syria then they wouldn’t have dared use chemical agents. (?Some kind of variant of having a mad-man at the switch?) Yet ignoring that if Congress doesn’t back Obama using limited means, then the repubs are responsible for the president being a paper tiger.
Comments are closed.