Poll Finds Overwhelming Majority Want Obama to Seek Congressional Approval for Syria Intervention

Not likely



A new poll shows an overwhelming majority of Americans would like to see a possible intervention in Syria first approved by Congress.

From USA Today:

Nearly 80% of Americans think President Obama should seek Congressional approval before taking any military action in Syria, according to a NBC News poll published on Friday.

Seventy-nine percent of respondents say they want the president to go to receive congressional approval before taking any action.

A vote in the British Parliament yesterday nixed that country's plans to join the US and others in a strike against Syria. Nevertheless the White House appears ready to strike despite any concerns. Syria's opposition leader says it's a moral responsibility. Going to Congress for a vote would be the Constitutional one; the US Congress hasn't declared a war since World War 2.

Follow this story and more at Reason 24/7 and don't forget you can e-mail stories to us at and tweet us at @reason247

NEXT: Peter Suderman Reviews The Grandmaster

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. If by Congress you mean Valerie Jarrett, then Obama agrees.

  2. Nearly 80% of Americans think the Constitution actually applies? I don’t believe it.

    1. Only in this specific, limited case.

    1. Exactly. It doesn’t matter if 0.05% of Americans want Obama to get a Declaration of War from Congress before commencing hostilities; he is legally bound to do so. The corollary is that if he doesn’t, he should be impeached.

    2. Could the Supreme Court issue an emergency injunction?

  3. Doesn’t matter. He won’t, and it’ll be because Bush made him do it!

  4. This time they won’t vote for him again, honest.

  5. Is it time to start printing, “Don’t Blame Me, I Voted For Romney” bumper stickers?

    1. That might only remind people of what a sorry affair the 2012 GOP nominating process really was.

      Maybe if you name Gary Johnson or any other third-party candidate, you’ll get some people thinking.

    2. I just bought a “Don’t blame me, I voted for Gary Johnson” t-shirt.

    3. You could print stuff that would be even more thought provoking–and hit liberals where it hurts, too.

      Print stickers that simply say things like, “Obama is a Warmonger”.

    4. My Bill & Opus one is timeless.

    5. Don’t Blame Me, I Didn’t Vote At All

  6. It makes no difference, because NOBODY disrespects Don Corleone Barack Obama and gets away with it!

  7. I am sure Obama is really worried about this with his re-election coming up and all. This is the downside of term limits. You get guys like Obama who can only be restrained by the threat of losing an election.

    1. Was there ever a threat that he might lose an election? Both 2008 and 2012 were comfortable victories by Bush standards.

      1. Bush won by a bigger margin in 04. Obama is the first President in history to lose votes on his re-election.

  8. What, and get his war boner cock blocked like that slimey limey?
    Not on Obama’s watch.
    Blood must flow.

  9. more specifically, if U.S. military action in
    Syria were limited to air strikes using cruise missiles
    launched from U.S. naval ships that were meant to
    destroy military units and infrastructure that have been
    used to carry out chemical attacks would you support
    or oppose this U.S. military action in Syria?*
    Support 50
    Oppose 44
    Not sure 6
    * Data reflects responses among 291 adults interviewed on 8/29

    NBC News

    1. You’re keeping in step and in line
      Got your chin held high and you feel just fine
      ‘Cause you do what you’re told
      But inside your heart it is black, it is hollow, it is cold

      Just how deep do you believe?
      Will you bite the hand that feeds?
      Will you chew until it bleeds? Can you get up off your knees?
      Are you brave enough to see?
      Do you wanna change it?

      What if this whole crusade’s a charade
      And behind it all there’s a price to be paid
      For the blood which we dine
      Justified in the name of the holy and the divine

      Just how deep do you believe?
      Will you bite the hand that feeds?
      Will you chew until it bleeds?
      Can you get up off your knees?
      Are you brave enough to see?
      Do you wanna change it?

      So naive I keep holding on to what I wanna believe I can see
      But I keep holding on and on and on and on

      Will you bite the hand that feeds you?
      Will you stay down on your knees?
      Will you bite the hand that feeds you?
      Will you stay down on your knees?
      Will you bite the hand that feeds you?
      Will you stay down on your knees?
      Will you bite the hand that feeds you?
      Will you stay down on your knees?

    2. As any military expert or strategist will tell you, surgical strikes don’t always lead to desired results especially if you don’t have a clear objective which is the common feature with this administration.

    3. Palin’s Buttplug| 8.30.13 @ 11:05AM |#
      “more specifically, if…”

      You mendacious twit, have you ever heard of “cherry picking”?

    4. “military units and infrastructure that have been used to carry out chemical attacks”

      I’ve seen this movie before.

      Next, there’ll be a poll about how the Syrians want us to shoot missiles at them–just like the Iraqi people supposedly wanted us to bomb them.

    5. If US military action were to take out a murderous dictator while simultaneously curing the civilian populace of all cancers, would you support or oppose military action in Syria?

  10. It doesn’t matter what the majority wants. It only matters what Barack Obama wants.

    After everything he’s done over the past five years, anybody that thinks Barack Obama cares about what we want is an idiot.

    1. If Barack Obama wants it, then the only opinion poll that matters favors whatever he wants to do–and it’s unanimous!

      1. Anyone, such as the Congress or American People, who oppose President Obama do so only because he is black. The Congress is trying to keep him down.

        Why are you all racist ?

  11. At this point I would think he would almost want a Congressional vote. If it fails (and I think it very well could) he can talk tough to maintain his “credibility” without having to do something much of the country opposes. It offers him a perfect out from the corner he’s painted himself into.

    1. He doesn’t want a vote because he doesn’t want Democrats in liberal leaning districts to have to face a midterm election after voting for his military adventure.

      1. So tell them they can vote “no”. Seriously, at this point how can Obama want to order a strike? The U.S. people don’t want it, Britain has backed out, Germany has no taste for it, the BRIC nations are standing firm, the only sort-of major power that is on board is France (now there’s irony). The only upside to a strike, from a political point of view anyway, is maintaining “credibility”, but how can he not be regretting that red line stuff? Congress can hand him a way out on a silver platter.

        1. There are two things that motivate Obama:

          1) Personal pride.

          2) Political calculations.

          By ordering the strikes, he salvages his personal pride, and by not making his Democrat allies go on the record in supporting his military adventure, he satisfies his political calculations.

          The pride part is because he promised to respond–with his “red line” comment. He can’t promise to strike someone if they step over the red line, and then not strike them after they’ve stepped over it. …not with his personal pride intact.

          It was a stupid, incompetent thing he said about that red line. He never should have said it, and no small cap CEO would make such a stupid mistake. But now that he’s painted himself into a corner, he has to follow through–it’s the same thing that happened with ObamaCare! He knew it was crap when he signed it, but he was compelled to deliver something on his stupid promise. …ObamaCare wasn’t popular back then, either.

          So, anyway, his personal considerations and political calculations have always trumped the best interests of the American people, and I see no reason why that should change now.

          It’s a good thing he isn’t running for reelection, or his response to Assad stepping over the red line would almost certainly be worse–justifying his stupid words and decisions for reelection purposes would require a much larger response than is currently being considered.

        2. He could announce that he has listened to the people, and the international community and that – unlike his predecessor – he will not take the country to war.

          1. Yeah, he could repeal ObamaCare and introduce true, market oriented healthcare reforms, too–but why would anybody think he would do that?

            That would make a mockery of everything he’s said about healthcare so far, and the chances of him saying that he’s ever been wrong about anything in public?

            Are less than zero.

            1. I get that. I just think that, if he decides the political heat is too high, he could couch this in a away that makes him look great.

        3. “the only sort-of major power that is on board is France (now there’s irony)”

          It’s not that ironic. My guess is that the French left is a lot like our left. Squeamish about military action if it helps get a socialist in power, but once they get that….bombs away, baby!

  12. 80% is not enough.

    1. The other 20% are either Obama cult victims or from the war-boner, right.

      1. From what I’ve gathered by listening to talk shows in the car, even the war-boner right isn’t too keen on missile strikes against enemies of the Muslim Brotherhood and Al Qaeda.

        1. There isn’t even a clear objective.

          Is it to make Assad feel bad? That isn’t a clear objective.

          The only clear objective I see is trying not to make Obama look like a fool for promising to strike Assad in response to a chemical attack and then doing nothing.

          Obama can’t suffer having his bluff called like that. And he doesn’t care whether the American people want it or not; he doesn’t care whether it’s in the best interests of American security or not. All he cares about is making himself look like what he said wasn’t as foolish as it is.

          We could spend all day talking about why Obama is actually worse than Bush–one of the reasons I’d give? Bush lied, cheated, did all sorts of evil things, but in the end? as deluded and wrong as he was, I suspect he really believed that what he was doing was in the long term best interests of American security. I think there was something in there about wanting to finish the job his dad started in Iraq, but even then, as wrong as he was, I suspect he really thought that what he was doing was in the best interests of the American people and the Iraqis.

          I don’t get that from Obama at all. Obama doesn’t give a shit if what he does is in the best interests of American security. This is all about personal pride with him. Barack Obama is a disgrace.

          1. The only clear objective that might make sense is to claim that the surgical strikes will only be against chemical weapon-related military facilities and units. The fact that no one from the admin has floated that idea should give us pause. Did it simply not occur to them? Do they not know where these facilities and units are? Do they just want to do this while keeping the true goal secret? If so, why?

            1. Yeah, and we’re gonna have to take their word for that when they hit them, aren’t we?

              Somehow, magically, I suspect the intelligence from the strikes will come back saying that Barack Obama is a genius tactician.

          2. …”The only clear objective I see is trying not to make Obama look like a fool”…
            Not possible.

  13. “EXCLUSIVE: Syrians In Ghouta Claim Saudi-Supplied Rebels Behind Chemical Attack”

    Rebels and local residents in Ghouta accuse Saudi Prince Bandar bin Sultan of providing chemical weapons to an al-Qaida linked rebel group.…..ns/168135/

  14. How many people want Obama to climb to the top of the Washington Monument and jump off?

    My hand is up.

    1. Mine too, only if the rest of the idiots in Washington will follow his lead.

  15. What ever happened to the North Korean threat from 5 months ago? We are just jonesing for a war. Korea, Iran, Syria, etc… Someone please fuck with us so we can blow something up.

    1. The guys from SCTV’s Farm Report are running foreign policy.

      1. Ha, ha!

  16. The other 21% should have their voting privileges revoked until they take a Constitution class and get no less than a “C” on the test.

  17. “I drink your hope. I drink it up.”

  18. Looks like Obama has finally managed to divert thenational attention from Benghazi.
    Even if it did take killing a bunch of Syrian civilians with chem weapons provided to Al Quada by the CIA.

  19. France wants to get all tough in Syria.

    I’m sure they’ll be chest thumping until they run behind America’s ass.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.