Posted on 08/31/2013 9:57:44 PM PDT by Errant
President Obama will carry out military action against Syria even if Congress votes against it, a senior State Department official tells Fox News’ Chief Washington Correspondent James Rosen.
Rosen’s notes concerning the White House’s reported intentions regarding the Syrian crisis were posted on Fox News colleague Greta Van Susteren’s Gretawire site late Saturday afternoon.
Rosen reports that “the president’s decision to seek a congressional debate and vote was a surprise to most if not all of” his national security team members. The state department official who communicated with Rosen added that Obama’s move to seek congressional approval “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 Rosen, which is why Obama’s Rose Garden remarks Saturday included his belief that he possesses the authority to launch strikes even without congressional authorization, Rosen adds.
The White House Saturday sent Congress a draft of a resolution authorizing Obama to use military force against Syria and laying out the administration’s claim that Assad’s regime killed more than 1,000 last week in a chemical weapons attack.
The resolution also says the objective of a U.S. military response would be to “deter, disrupt, prevent and degrade” the regime’s ability to use chemical weapons going forward.
The resolution authorizes Obama to use the military as he determines “necessary and appropriate” to serve that goal. The draft doesn’t lay out a timeline for action but does say only a political settlement can resolve the Syrian crisis.
Hey, whataknow, I finally agree with ol’ Joe on something! ;)
Great Point!
Just pay no attention to Zero signing that Small Arms Control Treaty.
If Congress approves, “0” will smile and carry out his strike. If Congress says no, “0” will scowl and carry out his strike.
Nor am I.
A false flag operation, or even an accident by the 'rebels' is every bit as credible without serious evidence otherwise. Assad had far more to lose by using WMDs than gain. Not so for the other elements who may have figured they'd get free air cover.
What is the difference now?
We only go to war when we are NOT attacked.
Strange how well all of this fits. If you know your Bible you all will see this.
He certainly sounds like he knows he has the votes in the Senate.
Obama is setting the stage for a long overdue GOP civil war. When the GOP establishment sides with Obama and defeats the overwhelming majority of the country and the party, things are going to get real ugly.
Get ready for anyone who opposes to be smeared.
“If the Republicans go along with this, it will be the final nail in their coffin as a viable political party.”
You never know. They always seem to come back from the dead. Sort of like vampires.
Keep in mind too tat they’re merely one faction of the same uniparty. Regardless of the gop’s fate, The (uni)Party will continue on.
“Screw the Repos... It could be the final nail for all of us!”
True that. The psychopaths sure are trying hard to start WWIII.
Well even the Globetrotters need the Washington Generals.
A -Always B-Be C-Closing.
Always Be Closing .....
ALWAYS...BE...CLOSING!
So, we're going to attack a Middle Eastern country to eradicate its WMDs. Hmmm, where have I heard that before?
The irony of obama allowing himself to be compared to the "despised" GWB is delicious.
But Obama wants to do it. He has an itchy trigger finger.
Obama intends to do that kind of harm to us.
“Well even the Globetrotters need the Washington Generals.”
Yup. And Stanley needed Oliver. And Shemp needed Moe.
We only go to war to save a ComDem POLs butt by wagging the dog.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.