Skip to comments.A No Vote on Syria may Cripple Obama's Domestic Agenda too
Posted on 09/07/2013 4:58:24 AM PDT by Kaslin
resident Obama, speaking at the G-20 meeting in St. Petersburg on Friday, reminded me of an investment banker trying to sell a deal he doesn't believe in. And the customer knows it.
Halting. Hesitant. Uncertain. Uncomfortable. That's what Obama's statement and body language had to say.
On the verge of a potentially huge defeat on the Syrian question in Congress, President Obama is in a box. He's looking for a way out, but he can't find one. He's losing supporters in the legislature at home, and he didn't gain any at the G-20 summit abroad.
When Obama speaks to the American people on Tuesday, maybe he'll pull a rabbit out of the hat. But House and Senate members and their staffers on both the left and right say the grassroots do not want a Syrian bombing mission. I can't speak for the left. But I know conservatives do not trust the president in his role as commander in chief. They want more than a shot across the bow, but they're not hearing clear strategies and intentions.
Worse, in recent days, the president has retreated back to terms such as "limited," "narrow," "tailored," and "negotiated." He is reminding everyone that he has no intention of a Bashar al-Assad regime change or of crippling the Syrian military.
Some news accounts imply a tougher mission that would take out the Syrian air force and airports and cripple command and control, along with any related chemical-weapons delivery systems. But this sounds more like Secretary of State John Kerry, who has done a good job outlining the military and strategic imperatives of a tough attack. It's not coming from President Obama.
At the G-20, it was Vladimir Putin who sounded tough as he pledged aid to Syria in the event of an American attack. And that brings up the question of retaliation by Iran and Hezbollah. In that event, what will Israel do? Counterattacks have not been addressed. There's no sense of what might happen next.
A congressional defeat on Syria might well be catastrophic for American credibility, as Sens. John McCain, Joe Lieberman and Lindsey Graham suggest and as Speaker John Boehner and Majority Leader Eric Cantor echo in the House. Everybody seems to know this except the president.
It's a very bad situation in and of itself. But spillover effects into economic and fiscal affairs will make it worse.
For example, take Friday's jobs report. It came in well below expectations. In fact, it looks like the pace of job creation is slowing, meaning there will be no second-half economic upturn.
Only 152,000 private jobs were created in August, while June and July were revised down by 74,000 jobs. Measured over three-month periods, job creation has dropped from 236,000 last February to only 158,000 through August.
And while unemployment dropped slightly for August, down from 7.4 to 7.3 percent, the participation rate fell again as more discouraged workers left the labor force. Adjusted for inflation, wage earnings have completely flattened out.
People are buying cars, and the ISM reports are strong. But business investment in long-lived projects -- the most powerful job-creator of all -- is actually falling.
So it's still an anemic 2 percent economy. And when the president returns from overseas, he'll get no plaudits for a new employment boom. More important, should Obama lose the congressional vote on Syria, his entire domestic agenda might fall apart.
At least three key democratic senators on the banking committee are saying no to the possible nomination of Obama-favorite Larry Summers to the Federal Reserve. And when the Fed itself meets on Sept. 17 and 18, it will probably defer any widely advertised bond-purchase cutbacks until the Syrian crisis has passed.
Two weeks after that, unless a continuing resolution gets passed, the government shuts down. And two weeks after that, the nation's borrowing power expires, making a higher debt ceiling necessary to keep operations going.
And on top of all that, the military is screaming that they need more money, because the president is asking them to do more with less.
How can a president defeated on Syria hope to cope with all this? It's almost beyond imagining. Which begs perhaps the largest question of all: Will a Syrian defeat in Congress cripple the administration completely, with 40 months left in the executive's term?
None of this is as important as America's global credibility, when the U.S. must not stand back and let rogue dictators use weapons of mass destruction. That said, Obama's foreign-policy blunders may end his domestic policy, too.
this guy is so weak, he’s dangerous.
He couldn’t handle watching the killing of Bin Laden....how the HELL is he going to handle WWIII that he started??
His domestic agenda, such as it is, was crippled long ago.
The ONLY thing Americans know for certain, is that
given a choice, Obama ALWAYS chooses al Qaeda over the
American people and the US Constitution.
He needs to learn not to let his alligator mouth over tip his hummingbird @$$.
He’s boxed himself into a corner, one he rightfully deserves. His credibility to do the job at home has always been one big question mark. That hasn’t changed.
His choice of public relations manager is obviously flawed too, because he didn’t have a back out plan.
Congress needs to speak up and say NO...now is not the time and Zero needs to agree, but his pride won’t let him. His pride is the problem. And that pride is likely to get a whole lot more people, killed.
Finally, if WWIII was planed long before WWl ever happened, it seems that this joker is well likely to be the fuse to set it off.
He has absolutely no compunction beating up on American citizens, and has virtually no opposition. If he ordered us to report to relocation camps tomorrow, Sarah Palin would issue a harshly worded tweet and her followers would clap like circus seals. That’s how silly and innefectual the right have become.
I recorded vote in the house has nothing but loss for the democrats. They can go on record voting to throw their president overboard or they can go on record voting to support a war that nobody wants.
For republicans, voting no is a way to show themselves to be the party of restraint.
“how the HELL is he going to handle WWIII that he started??”
I’m pretty sure a speech on Tuesday, September 11.....the same date and day of the 2001 attacks.....will not be received favorably, given the presence of Al Qaeda among those who would be assisted in a strike an Syria.
The audacity of a dope.
“More important, should Obama lose the congressional vote on Syria, his entire domestic agenda might fall apart.”
Which agenda is being spoken of here? The one he ran for re-election on? The one he took up the next month after his re-election? The one from about three months later, the economy tour? The one three months after that? The current pro-Al Qaeda agenda? Which one?
Syria is no push over when it comes to air defense...
I don't remember applying for the job as financier of the world's police force - how did I get it?
Not only do I not strut into ghettos in America and try to keep them from killing each other, I resent wasting my money hiring others to do so.
What rogue dictators do to their own people half-a-planet away "doesn't confront me none".
I have plenty to do just keeping an eye on our own rogue dictator.
Everyone is saying the UN report will change the game. I do not believe it will...because there is no way they will be able to separate the rebels infiltrated in Assad’s army from Assad himself.
Could we quit joining him in blaming circumstances and other people? Ever?
BO is inept. His entire cabinet is inept.
Each one of them dislikes this great country.
None of them are fit for any kind of public office.
Now the game of the media is how to prop him up for the next 3 and a half years.
All of the media is at fault for their own discomfort on this
The right wing media, where Mr. Kidlow has a place, is going to squirm, where they have been mushy on BO
It’s not the no vote nor the congress, who have been on BOs side, save lee and Cruz.
It’s that BO and his staff do not belong in that office
Foot on the desk, indeed!
If you want an idea of how Barry would handle a wider campaign in Syria, just look at how he has handled Afghanistan for 5 years. The body bags will pile up in short order as he uses our troops as cannon fodder to protect AQ.
He’s criminally incompetent.
Since the height of Vietnam the liberal/progressive/socialist/democrat cabal has grossly misunderstood the American military on multiple levels.
First, the American military is a product of the American people. The recent change in how activity duty and retired vets are treated clearly show this. No more scant looks and snide comments; now its thank you for your service. The general populace has taken ownership of their military composed of their children.
Second, you don’t use the military to send messages. Doing so means the State Department has failed in their duties. When you send in the military they are there to break things and hurt people to inform the other side, and the rest of the world, you really don’t want to piss the US off - the costs are too high.
Third, and finally, without a strong military you have nothing to work with when it comes to international diplomacy. After all, how many nations fear the Dutch whe they are operating without close in American military support?
The Emperor is doing nothing more than repeating the mistakes, some times writ large, of LBJ, Carter, and Billy Boy. And like Carter, he is opposed by a strong(er) Russia headed by a confident leader.