IMO, this was his best way out. It's a very pragmatic move, meaning that he believes he has the power, but realizes how unfavorable the option to use it is. If he goes to congress and they tell him no, not right now, he gets to save face, while coming out more popular all around as opposed to straight unilateral action. In the end, the congress gets to really exercise their views and the President gets to save face.

No way it's approved. I'd be very surprised if for some reason it is. But, at least he goes with the congressional blessing.

Personally, the vote was the best idea that I could come up with. We need to turn up the pressure on those who are in the middle east to police their own. They need to be called out and pressured for their own lack of action or passive acceptance of the status quo.

Kudos to Obama. The way all of these military actions should be decided whether this has a purely political motive or not. And as a political move... A+.

I'd respect him more if he simply said he believes the red line has been crossed, but realizes that going forward without any international support would cause a lot of harm to American interests.

He looks weak if the vote fails. If it succeeds, it's his to carry, just like Bush gets to represent Iraq in the needless my-ego-was-challenged war Hall of Fame. And it's no-win in the Middle East. Either he supports the Muslim Brotherhood as he did tacitly with Egypt, which is not our friend under any circumstances, or he goes against a ruling party/dictatorship that could have at least been non-hostile (look how the Egyptians feel about him today).

As bad as he's been on domestic policy, his work in the Middle East has distinguished him as hopelessly not ready for the international stage.

It really seems like the process of becoming president eliminates any potentially half-decent candidate long before we get to vote.

I like the whiplashed description. Its good that he thought it out.

The White House walk-and-talk that changed Obama's mind on Syria - First Read

Isn't that basically what he said?

Looking forward to the Sunday pundits talking. I think the scenarios are

1) Congress votes no, Obama does nothing much
2) Congress votes no, Obama goes ahead with some military action
3) Congress votes yes, Obama does nothing much (unlikely)
4) Congress votes yes, Obama goes ahead with some military action
5) Congress delays/defers vote, Obama does nothing much
6) Congress delays/defers vote, Obama goes ahead with some military action

I think its either 2 or 6 with some non-UN coalition cobbled together.

No doubt its 5 or 6. The spineless house will never put their names to a vote on something like this. The GOP can't go back to their districts and face their voters after voting not to kill more brown people and the Democrats can't rebuke their president. (Wonder if they do end up voting and voting against Obama if it will be because they are racist like every vote by the GOP against Obama is always explained)

I am hoping for 1 or 3. The media is spinning this already as a historic backdown by the United States. Like JPhillips mentioned earlier we have been involved in 40+ years of endless war and now if we don't bomb Syria then the world balance of power will shift overnight. I'm sure even if we don't go to Syria that we will continue bombing Yemen and Pakistan and probably be in Iran by the end of next year. I don't see this as the end of US meddling in the Middle East. (unfortunately)

Have we figured out where the chemical weapons were built? Russia? Korea?? USA??? Iraq????

...or can they just build them themselves?

Isn't it about time to bomb Japan for WMD?

Seriously, this is a huge problem that nobody in charge seems to care about.

Off topic for the thread but I just saw a commercial attacking Paul Ryan from the right on the topic of immigration.

Is it just me or are Republicans as splintered as I've seen in my 31 years? The Democrats have been there too, I know. I just wonder what the endgame here is for Republicans.

Doubling down on more and more rigid views for years now isn't a path to continuity.

I think the party is going through a pretty big evolution at this point. There's a lot of Republicans like me who want the religious/overly conservative part of the party to go f%$# themselves. They're so out of touch with anything that they're a detriment to realistic policies. As you note, it happens in all parties every now and then. It's going to take some time to figure out whether the two sides of that battle can work together, if at all.

I want to agree but there are some Muslims more aligned to us which we should try to help. Good to see Sarah back in the headlines.

Sarah Palin: 'Let Allah Sort It Out' In Syria

I suspect you answered your own question there, to the point where I believe it was almost rhetorical.

The MBBF wing vs the JIMGA wing of the Republican party :)

Painful watching Kerry this morning, feel sorry for him. "we are stronger for it ..." is a reoccurring phrase.

I would seriously consider resigning if it as him. Not his fault but he was embarrassed.

The media needs a sideshow. Might as well quote Justin Bieber, too. Neither would have much chance of locating Syria on a world map.

In the s hook lunch debate...I want someone to figure this shit out.

So apparently the dept of education partially finds school lunches, and so long as a kids lunch meets certain guidelines it meets criteria for funding. A my sons school, a daily lunch is 3.25... No complaints.

But only if he gets 1 entree, 1 fruit, 1 additional carb side (pasta, potato or rice), 1 grain (a roll), and a milk.

My son ( who is pretty darn healthy at 5'11" 155lbs and wearing a size 14 shoe at 12) doesn't like the pasta,potato, rice option and doesn't drink milk. So his usual school day lunch is the entree of the day (usually pizza, burger, chicken sandwich or whatever else they serve..occasionally meat loaf ) an apple and water. If he doesn't take the milk, carb and roll he has to pay a la carte pricing.

That's 7.00 for a piece of pizza and an apple.
So his solution (according to the district food services group) is to take the extras and throw them away...if he shares his food or milk with another student that is grounds for expulsion..."to prevent food tampering or poisoning".

My son doesn't drink whole milk, th school doesn't offer skim milk..so he throws out an unopened milk carton every day...along with some rice and a roll.

Stupid.

And don't even get me started on the composition of that meal.

Don't agree with you on much, but you'll get no argument from me on this.

Stupid & inflexible for sure.

I know this is probably dumb but ... what do they do with kids that have dairy or gluten allergies?

Do they just screw 'em to the ala carte plan?

Good for Kerry. Wonder what he really thinks of Obama.

In Syria delay, Kerry may prove himself a team player - The Washington Post

Hopefully some additional support is coming. I get Turkey (with airbases etc.) but what can Saudi and UAE really do to help.

Sources: 3 countries offer military assets for U.S. attack on Syria - CNN.com

Shits getting real - England up their national security level ...


(sorry couldn't resist)

Who knows what Syrian rebels were carrying in Turkey? But you know things are a mess when Russia is making the most sense when it comes to foreign policy.

Obama is playing Twilight Struggle and he has no idea what future cards may contain. This bombing cannot happen.

I find it amusing that the conservatives (mostly on tv and in Congress but could be applied to some on here) all of a sudden have found Jesus and are anti-war and the world is going to come to an end if we attack Syria. Don't get me wrong I am anti about every conflict the United States meddles in but...

A) Obama is just continuing a long tradition of the United States trying to police the world. Why he is getting so much backlash is a bit suspect.

B) If Obama does decide to strike Syria it will lead to civilian casualties and likely United States soldier casualties but not WW3 and not anything of the order that is being predicted.

It's hilarious that the same groups of people that were all up Ron Paul's ass after the Republican primary debates about how we can't show any weakness in the Middle East have now adopted basically every reason he gave back then as reasons on why we should stay out of Syria. (Which I guess I should be happy they now believe though I have trouble believing 95% of them really mean it)

I find the straw men amusing when it comes to defending our president's rash and ill-considered international policies. If you can't defend the policy, just make stuff up about those who criticize it. This is a proposed bombing that will serve no purpose other than preserving Obama's own ego.

Of course, I've been wrong before. When Bush decided to invade Iraq for different but equally specious reasons, my reaction was horror with a little bit of relief that there was no way he'd be re-elected in 2004. We all know how that worked out. Wars may play poorly on the international stage, but we Americans seem to love seeing them on CNN from the safety of our own living rooms.

The bottom line in both cases is that there is/was no national interest in going rogue and starting a war with little-to-no international support. And we might be unpleasantly surprised by the Russian toys Syria has accumulated in recent years. We have absolutely no idea what the end game is here. Russia, laughably in its case, has made a strong but reasonable statement. Far more long-term gain will come from listening and holding the Russians to it.

Sure it can.

It shouldn't ... but it can.

Add me to the list of people who are tired of us being the world police.

Same.

EDIT: There is something to be said for fighting for those who cannot fight for themselves. However, I think we need to be more selective in how we do that.

SI

I'd add the same for many of these economic aid packages that we send to some of these countries. There's some situations where that needs to be yanked on the spot if certain countries don't step in line. I mean, we're talking billions of dollars going to countries that don't even support us for the most part.

I'm not sure I've ever agreed with Mark Steyn, but he nails this:

"If you don't do what we want, we'll have TSA agents at every checkpoint and stop and frisk in every major city." Then we'll see who wants to mess with us...

SI

Some wins include Panama, Bosnia, Serbia, Grenada, Iraq (Kuwait), Libya.

With that said, I'm not convinced that we can win Syria but think we can certainly help the more moderate rebels survive.

Another perspective, can't disagree at their conclusion. But respectfully, its not as if Israel's foreign policy is something we want to emulate either.

Israeli sources on Obama's Syria approach: 'Not how a superpower acts' | Fox News

Yawn. Hard to tell that Israel is even our ally these days, the way they act sometimes.

SI

What I got from that Israeli quote is that they are butt hurt that Obama didn't reflexively ask "How high?" when they said "Jump!".

Like if it made our gas prices go up.

Agree. Only correction I would make is all the time.

At this point, if there is a strike, I hope it's merely to kill Assad. But I'm tired of this, this is old school foreign policy that doesn't work. Our influence in these situations is always a negative. I am horrified at the deaths of the people in Syria though, I watched the videos. My feeling is that if America really wanted to win this, it would provide as much assistance to the refugees. If you could protect them, even evacuate them, you are providing to the rebels the ability to win the war as well as incentive to show that you can do something other than blow things up (generally with innocent people suffering as a consequence).

A few thoughts and or questions:

1) I don't it's just parents working that have kids are in more in structured activities or afterschool, but isn't part of it that it's become a bit of an arms race to make their children into the perfect people who believe it's the path to the best college or athletic success? Parents believe that their little Johnny or Susy are going to be Mr. or Mrs. Perfect.

2) With all of these structured activities and afterschool, how much independence and imagination/creativity is being lost? My friends, and I would go off on our bikes and race, play football in the yard, or just hike through the woods and play games.

3) In regards to eating foods/meals that are healthy and fresh, have prices inflated beyond regular inflation percentage rates? Is it too expensive? Ground beef is the standard go-to dish we ate, but when you look at things like wildly-caught seafood, it's pretty damn expensive per pound. How much worst has the quality of products gotten over the years due to processed crap, pesticides, hormones, GMOs, ect.?

4) It's quite scary how cooking seems to be becoming a bit of a lost art these days. It's not tough. Stocking up on easy-to-make "out-of-the-box" products or eating out all the time seems to become the standard dietary lifestyle.

Well, when you're told from top to bottom what "slots" need to be filled on the college application to even have a chance, at some point it's hard not to see what you're being asked to do. I'd say that's pretty much the motivation for at least 80% of the extracurricular activities (both school-related & not) of the highest achieving kids I know. Otherwise I suspect they'd actually, you know, rest & stuff.

I agree, parents and kids looking to be well-rounded, or look good on resumes and applications is another big piece of that, and moving down in age group every year. I think even outside of parents who are ambitious in that sense though, lots of families have two parents working and so need the structure for other reasons. It's a combination of both. Lots of other factors too, including the type of neighborhoods and communities people live in now which often don't promote or provide that space to play.

My kids benefit from parents who work at home, and so do our neighbors, so we're a rare breed. But I definitely think it hurts the imaginative, creative side, it's why we've chosen to work at home and be able to provide this while the kids are young. Hurts us financially for sure, but it feels like a good investment when I watch the kids playing out in the yard.

Huge part of the reason we as a nation are so fat.

It wouldn't be so bad if there wasn't sugar/HFCS added to damn near everything. I probably ate the same volume of food when I lived in Italy, but in their packaged foods, sweeteners are almost always far down the list. For example, take a look at a jar of Prego or Ragu. One of the first few items if HFCS. None of that in a jar of sauce in Italy. A jar of Barilla sauce sent to the US has a different make up than a jar of Barilla in Italy.

The reduced amount of calories from sugar/HFCS, coupled with a higher activity level from having to walk most places makes a huge difference. I weighed 175 when I lived over there, and within a year of being back in the US, I was up to 190.

It's crazy how much sugar or corn syrup is in food here. It's hard to avoid even in things that you don't think of as sweet. We're not talking ice cream here but, yeah, examples like the above spaghetti sauce or salad dressing or any other soup or sauce or pre-made food.

SI

I agree if you're chasing after the top schools. But you have a ton of parents who want think their child is going to get a athletic scholarship to college.

So the foreign relations committee agrees with Obama about the need to intervene in Syria. I admit I sometimes miss things but can someone fill me in on how a country currently on "sequestration" is planning on paying for this.

The answer ...

The House’s Syria hearing: Live updates