Biden also re-committed to running for a third term next year as the Democratic attorney general, so far without opposition, and rekindled the expectation the campaign could be a dress rehearsal for the governor's race in 2016.
We got hoodwinked once about ten years ago by an earlier administration on bad intelligence that alleged that the Iraqis — Saddam Hussein — had used chemical weapons. It turned out not to be true,” said Carper. “In this case, we want to make sure that the assertions, the allegations are indeed true.”Then he tips his hand and allows that he is probably going to vote "yes" anyway.
President Barack Obama isn't likely to launch a military strike on Syria if Congress votes against doing so, a top national security official said Friday. During an interview on NPR's "Morning Edition," Tony Blinken, Obama's deputy national security adviser, said "the president of course has the authority" to take limited military action in Syria with or without the approval of lawmakers, but "it's neither his desire nor intention to use that authority absent Congress backing him."I would prefer a Shermanesque "He won't," but this is better than nothing. So Congress, vote this thing down and let's all get on with our lives. And if the vote were held today in the House, it would fail.
"Would a Congress that authorizes military action in Syria shut down the U.S. government and default just a few weeks later?"
Imagine that Congress votes not to authorize Obama’s plan. Then further imagine that Bashar al-Assad, emboldened, carries out another chemical attack. The media coverage would be far more intense. And members of Congress who voted no will have to answer for the carnage that will appear on television screens across the world. If the first vote lost by a relatively narrow margin, Obama would probably then call for a second vote and stand a good chance of winning. The prospect of that happening may itself deter Assad. And when Republicans complain that Obama’s gambit of asking for a congressional vote is a way of shifting responsibility onto Congress, they are, in a sense, correct. Obama will own the consequences of action with or without Congress’s approval. But if it disapproves, Congress will own the consequences of inaction. And those might ultimately prove higher than it is willing to bear.Interesting. If you think Assad cannot be stupid enough to use them again, you ignore the fact that he was stupid enough to use them the first time.
