There is a "saving-face"

If the senate vote goes against the WH, the president can say that although it may be morally just, to try to do anything to stop repugnant acts such as gassing innocents, there is also a legal framework that was perhaps irreparably broken by the blatant falsehoods of past administrations.

Intervention once was a given by previous presidents:

Truman & Korea
Eisenhower/Kennedy/Johnson & VietNam
Reagan & the Contras/Lebanon/Grenada
GHWB & Panama/Kuwait
Clinton & Kosovo
BushII & Iraq/Afghanistan

In the era of modern Social Media, there is a great deal of extra attention paid to every detail of war-making, even if we do not call each adventure a "war", the public can easily research how "small interventions" spin out of control and escalate.

It could also be said, that this is not a surprise in this particular congress that would vote against a presidential proffer that it's hot in the summertime, cold in the winter, or that July follows June.

He could wrap it up by saying that he personally would like to "do something", but as the head of only 1/3 of the constitutionally mandated government, he recognizes that congress has the right to declare war, and that a new definition of "war" is now (by this precedent), is ANY use of military as an antagonist.

Congress wants BACK the constitutional authority previously given to presidents, and has accepted full responsibility to vote on each and every military incursion in the future.


From wikipedia:

Face refers to two separate but related concepts in Chinese social relations. One is mianzi (Chinese: ), and the other is lian (Traditional Chinese: 臉, Simplified Chinese: ), which are both used commonly in everyday speech rather than in formal writings.

Lian is the confidence of society in a person's moral character, while mianzi represents social perceptions of a person's prestige. For a person to maintain face is important with Chinese social relations because face translates into power and influence and affects goodwill. A loss of lian would result in a loss of trust within a social network, while a loss of mianzi would likely result in a loss of authority. To illustrate the difference, gossiping about someone stealing from a cash register would cause a loss of lian but not mianzi. Repeatedly interrupting one's boss as he is trying to speak may cause the boss a loss of mianzi but not lian.

When trying to avoid conflict, Chinese in general will avoid causing another person to lose mianzi by not bringing up embarrassing facts in public. Conversely, when challenging authority and another person's standing within a community, Chinese will often attempt to cause a loss of lian or mianzi. A very public example of this occurred during the Tiananmen protests of 1989 when Wu'er Kaixi scolded Premier Li Peng for being late to a meeting with the demonstrators, resulting in Li's loss of mianzi because he was seen as either tardy or insincere about the meeting.

Notice that directly lying doesn't cause a loss of face. For example, if a reservation is cancelled by an airline, then they can lie that it is merely delayed. Inability to arrange the trip would cause a loss of face, while lying that it is delayed does not. So-called "polite lies" are perfectly acceptable, and even expected.