Mark Mardell has had a sudden change of mind.
Obama’s decision to have a vote on Syria was a ‘canny, democratic move’ at one time quite recently.
If Congress doesn’t back him, it will be disastrous for the president.
His decision to call for a vote will look foolish and he would be left with an appalling choice.
Ignore the vote and enrage Congress and many Americans. Or don’t strike and live with John Kerry’s words that America will be weakened, petty dictators emboldened and history’s judgement harsh on America’s leaders.
So everything hangs on Obama winning the vote. But even if he does, the delay gives Assad more time to prepare for the blow.
The decision has left many commentators questioning his leadership and asking how Obama managed to box himself in.
You’ve had your hanging chads… now go for a load of balls.
The BBC comes out swinging for democracy.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-23930815
If, just possibly, via its unique internal filter that can add even more colour than there is already.
Had to like the suited anarchist asking the suited ‘reporter’ if he’s off there anytime soon… wiped the cheery grin off his face, which even all those dead kids hadn’t managed before.
You know, there’s a lot to be said for voting at general elections by putting a coloured ball in a box and seeing who has the higher pile. It would fit in nicely with the calibre of today’s politicians. Who could then play in the pile of plastic balls and throw them at each other.
I think we should write the name of the politician we like least on a piece of broken pottery
Anyone not blinded by Obama’s halo (this obviously excludes Mark Lardell) would have seen his volte-face for what it was: weak ‘leadership’ from a snivelling coward.
Obama could have quite legitimately bombed Syria and scheduled a vote in Congress for the mandate to continue the action if necessary beyond 60 days. Whilst not the best approach by any means, he boxed himself into this position.
I wonder to what extent Obama had expected the British parliament to rubberstamp the strike, and so provide a degree of legitimacy to his action – if his policy had been cobbled together on this basis, its a shocking indictment of the obvious group-think happening in the White House.
On the bright side, perhaps he relies on the BBC for news about the UK, and so his expectation was based on their reporting. It would be nice to think that the BBC’s biased reporting had the unintended consequence of making Obama look like an even bigger fool than usual.
“If Congress doesn’t back him, it will be disastrous for the president.
His decision to call for a vote will look foolish and he would be left with an appalling choice.”
I think that was obvious to most of us straight away, whichever side of the debate we’re on. But it’s nice to be paying Mr Mardell’s salary so he can work it out two days after the rest of us.
“Syria crisis: MPs ‘right to reject military action’ – BBC poll”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23931479
(But Beeboids were more right.)
Who’s really in charge of Britain’s policies relating to Islam,
externally and internally?
http://www.independent.co.uk/incoming/article7814705.ece/ALTERNATES/w460/Pg-12-warsi-epa.jpg
The BBC’s US President editor will be wearing sackcloth and ashes by mid-week. Many people he respects are now questioning His leadership? Oh, my. Never mind, Mark, here’s your next angle of approach:
At risk of being the odd man out here I think Obama’s decision to bring the matter before Congress was the correct one, both legally and morally. If Congress fails to give assent (they don’t seem to be able to pass a budget, arguably their only responsibility, so it’s on the cards) America doesn’t go to war in Syria. As the Founding Fathers imagined when they wrote Article One, Section Eight of the Constitution “Congress shall have power to … declare War”. so it is reasonable that Congress should be able to decide not to go to war, especially when there is no immediate threat to America’s interests.
Surely it can’t be a bad thing for the decision to go to war be discussed publicly? Please tell me what the aims of this mission will be? How long will troops be expected to stay? At what point does America throw up its hands and declare defeat or victory?
Yes, it is true that tens of thousands are dying but will America’s effort alter this? Assad receives support from Syria’s minorities notably the Druse, Kurds, Christians and his own Alawites from a not unjustified fear that the Sunni majority would massacre them if it took power. The persecution of Christians in Egypt by the Sunni majority lends credence to this fear as does the likelihood that the new regime would be dominated not by liberal, modernistic Sunni businessmen and intellectuals but by Al Qaeda. Instead of reducing casualties war might simply redirect them.
Will America gain credit for its good intentions or will it be condemned no matter who wins? Neither side looks likely to becomes an American ally.
I don’t believe the idea that if Obama is defeated America loses credibility. Obama has succeeded in reducing America’s credibility, all by himself, without any help from Congress. It seems that he doesn’t want to go to war and is likely to deliver what is essentially a symbolic blow. If America’s intervention doesn’t unseat Assad it is pointless posturing, anyway.
deegee, you’re only the odd man out if you’re one of the President’s inner circle. Sane people with an understanding of US law think the President should have gotten Congressional approval before telling the world He was determined to go to war.
We saw this with Libya. The President does have the power to launch a very limited military strike on something without needed Congress, but it’s limited. After 60 days, only Congress can approve more. And only Congress can authorize a real military action. There really was a legal problem when the President kept the war on Libya going without Congressional authorization. That’s part of why He’s asking for it now. Not that you’d hear that from the astute analysts at the BBC.
Nobody with a clue – or who is being honest – thinks that anything useful can be done in a few days and without much military muscle. That’s the real reason it’s important to get Congressional approval. The reason that’s important superficially and for BBC consumption (but I repeat myself) is obvious: it makes Him look magnanimous and statesmanlike. And it’s what the BBC is focused on, as opposed to the reality. Isn’t He great for asking the staff what they’d like to do?
That’s how the President sees the military, and that’s how the BBC sees Congress, the government, and the US public.
But to have taken action without the UN, without the UK, without Congress and without the American people’s support would have been very uncomfortable for a Nobel Peace Prize laureate.
There, fixed that for you, Mark. But never mind: we’ve got France behind us!
Re-KERRY and ASSAD:
-has BBC-Democrat pointed out this?-
“John Kerry and Bashar al-Assad dined in Damascus.
“Photographs showing John Kerry, the US secretary of state, dining in splendour with President Bashar al-Assad have emerged, as Mr Kerry likened the Syrian ruler to Hitler.”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/10283045/John-Kerry-and-Bashar-al-Assad-dined-in-Damascus.html
Also:-
“Before Troubles, Kerry Had Intimate Dinner with Assad in 2009”
http://www.newsmax.com/newswidget/kerry-assad-dinner-syria/2013/09/03/id/523487?promo_code=1212C-1&utm_source=1212CAtlas_Shrugs_2000&utm_medium=nmwidget&utm_campaign=widgetphase1
Funny how Mardell’s analysis of issues changes depending on whether or not he approves of something. Here’s the BBC’s US President editor fretting that, as yet another poll shows the US public is largely against any action against Syria, Congress would “still be authorising something the American public don’t want to happen”.
Yet with ObamaCare, even though less than half the public approved of it, Mardell referred to a Democrat-controlled Congress ramming that through as a “Golden Age”, and I’m sure everyone remembers how the BBC trumpeted that triumph.
So transparent.