Image 01 Image 03

Should Congress authorize use of force in Syria? (Reader Poll)

Should Congress authorize use of force in Syria? (Reader Poll)

Now that you have had all of about 6 hours to digest Obama’s decision to seek authorization from Congress for use of force in Syria in response to the Syrian government’s use of chemical weapons, let’s get some quick reader feedback.

The poll is open until 5 p.m. Eastern on Sunday, September 1.


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


PersonFromPorlock | August 31, 2013 at 8:01 pm

Er… where’s the poll?

Not A Member of Any Organized Political | August 31, 2013 at 8:03 pm

Holder and Obama should go and spent a month there as “average” people – and then report back to us.

Not A Member of Any Organized Political | August 31, 2013 at 8:10 pm

“Barack Obama is proving an embarrassing amateur on the world stage compared to George W. Bush”

If no one else cares, why should we bother with another war?

Seems I am a member of the ‘Majority Of No.’

The material that this adventure has created is priceless.
I’ll give odds any strike goes well but the White House & State will lose the peace.

The truth is, he doesn’t need congressional authorization. Also, it’s quite unlike Obama to ask for authorization. All I can think of is that he WANTS congress to say no, to spare him the humiliation of going in without an actual plan.

So instead of looking like a weakling and a fool, he’ll look like a fool and a weakling.

Really, I don’t understand this whole situation.

    rantbot in reply to irv. | August 31, 2013 at 11:19 pm

    This blog has the screwiest software. I see a bonehead statement like “The truth is, he doesn’t need congressional authorization” and hit the “thumbs down” button, and what does the blog do? Gives it a “thumbs up”.

    It’s like a damn New Jersey voting machine, or a Global Warming computer model.

    Look here, I am an outsider, and even I know that Congressional authorization is required. On top of that I even know why Congress adopted this change. It was meant to stop the hawks from being gun happy in other countries.

    The fact is, that should this dimwit decide to go it alone, the action could end up in a world war…YES IT IS THAT SERIOUS.

    There is no approval from the U.N. This is why even Libya was a different scenario because the U.N. passed a resolution that allowed the NATO action in Libya. There is no chance that the U.N. will make any resolution on Syria.

    Plus, we do not have the results from the U.N. team regarding their investigation. Both sides of the conflict need to be treated with suspicion. I am aware that the most likely answer is that it was Maher, the brother of Bashar Assad who authorized the chemical strike… but we do not know for sure who was behind the attack.

      JackRussellTerrierist in reply to Aussie. | September 1, 2013 at 9:08 pm

      With obastard’s track record, anybody who would support him in attacking so much as a gnat is out of their mind. It’s like giving a machine gun to a 4 yr. old.

      He stepped in it again and now he’s looking for cover. I knew this would happen.

      If he’d spend the rest of his term on the golf course and not talk and not sign anything, we and the world would be better off.

Make the Dems introduce the resolution, make every democrat register a roll call vote. Require all extra funding to come from the existing budget. Require the Administration to explain if this is a declaration of war, if not why not? Make the Administration go on record as to what is exactly their authority to do this without Congressional approval. Make them explain why if it is in their authority to go without Congressional approval that they are here asking for it.
Do not let them hide on this make them explain everything publicly. Congress should remember that Obama is coming to them not by Congressional demand!

what benefit is it to our country?

Obama unilaterally attacked Libya, launching missiles and dropping bombs. Why is he now hesitating while awaiting Congressional approval? Could he be concerned about another Bengazi, where former allies respond with violent ingratitude? He will never live down that fateful video.

    n.n in reply to n.n. | August 31, 2013 at 9:13 pm

    As for Syria, a preponderance of circumstantial evidence is insufficient to justify a declaration of war. His proposal to poke and prod is insufficient to provide humanitarian aid. Obama has undeclared motives to attack Syria or to raise that consideration. I wonder if his intent is to destroy evidence.

    Your information on Libya is not correct.

    There was a U.N. resolution that allowed for the No-Fly zone. The NATO forces were involved. The first air strike when the No-Fly zone was implemented came from the French and the British, but it was mostly the French. They came just in time because Benghazi was about to be bombarded as the tanks with their heavy guns were heading towards that city. The one thing that did not happen was Soetoro taking unilateral action. He did not want to do anything!! Once the “attack” started the coward pulled back, and refused to lead. It was the Canadians who ended up in the lead whilst that military action from the air continued.

    At the same time I need to point to yet another myth about the Libyan chemical weapons. A cache was found, near Benghazi. This cache of chemical weapons were handed over to the U.N. by the Opposition forces in Libya. They were fully co-operative. It is possible that there might have been another cache because Gadhafi hid what he claimed to have destroyed, so one cannot infer that any chemical weapons came from Syria. The most likely place they have come from is Iraq…. you know all those trucks that left Iraq prior to the invasion.. they contained the chemical weapons that were sent into Syria.

As Sarah Palin said, “Let Allah Sort it Out”.

Lemme see…Trust Obam-Bam to do the right thing: NO. Nein. Nada. Nope. Nyet. No F***ing Way.

There’s my vote.

star1701gazer | August 31, 2013 at 9:33 pm

While I understand the reaction of ‘It is none of our business” and “how does this benefit U.S. interests” and “We are not the world’s policeman”, I think folks need to ask themselves how they will feel if Assad’s chemical weapons begin to fall upon our allies, or perhaps make their way to our shores (via the multiple terrorist organizations operating in Syria at this time)? Will you be wailling and gnashing your teeth then about why ‘someone’ didn’t do something about those chemical weapons?
History continually repeats itself…appease, fail, appease, fail, appease, fail, war……

You have to ask yourself: King Obama had had not bothered asking congress for anything. Preferring to ram bills down the Republican’s throats.

And now all the sudden he goes all “democracy” on us?
This vote is nothing but a disingenuous political ploy to try to un-paint himself out of the corner he is in.

Absolutely not. The British scared up the courage to just say no, now its congresses turn to show some spine and do their job.

Time for the few remaining warm bodies with a soul in the big room in DC to call the bluff.

America doesn’t want a war and the GOP doesn’t want a war so quite simply all you have to do is vote no and things are good. Obama claims he can go to war anyways so why would a no really stop him? It didn’t stop him before…why is it stopping him now?

Second, take an opportunity to show that you can do what Democrats cannot…actually vote against what you claim to stand against. Iraq war was bipartisan approved. Then, those same left wing approvers said they were against the war…take the chance to show the stark contrast between liars and honesty/integrity.

Obama wants congress to vote no to bail him out. Then, when Assad commits further atrocities, he can point the finger not at congress, but at the GOP, regardless of how Dems voted no. The media will ignore the lie and the public will believe it.

Congress needs to tell Obama, “Sorry, Sparky, but you broke it, you pay for it. We are not bailing you out because you’ll turn on us the minute we do. You’ve made it very clear you don’t need congress involved, and you can decide to attack or not attack all by yourself. You are on your own – by your own choice.”

Even the (probably unconstitutional) War Powers Act doesn’t require congressional preapproval to lob a few missiles at somebody. That’s within Obama’s prerogative as CinC. No one is even dreaming he is thinking of ground troops in any way (although if they were really trying to target WMD sites Special Forces spotters would be needed on the ground).

A weak, ineffectual, vacillating clown dithers around, sticks his foot in his mouth, dithers some more, and comes up with a weak and ineffectual policy that makes America look bad.


Elections matter. And too many white, middle class conservatives have stayed home and helped elect this buffoon twice. Our nominees were flawed? You betcha! But you don’t see too many Washingtons, Lincolns, or Reagans.

So they got Obama instead. Hope they are all happy with their decisions.

I was a little disappointed that the poll didn’t have an option to vote “OMFG ABSOLUTELY NOT, NO WAY, ARE YOU OUT OF YOUR FREAKING MIND?!?!?!”

So I had to make do with a mere “Mo”.

Sigh. My vote was “No”, not “Mo”. Proofreading is a good thing, if you remember to do it.

Congress has the power, but has abdicated for the past few years. A President can lob some missiles alright and Congress can stop all funding for it, thus shutting it down. Problem: congress has not had a actual appropriated budget for 5 years now…effectively shutting themselves down. 90%+ of the electorate does NOT know how a Continuing Resolution works so they think things are still fine. They are NOT. CR’s allow run amok spending and fund transfer without oversight by your elected representatives for 95% of the prior fiscal period’s expenditure level. WE have screwed ourselves by electing idiots and eunuchs.

If the poll offered a ‘Hell No’ option, I would have clicked that instead of the ‘No’ option.