Candidate Obama Talked So Pretty About The Constitution And Military Strikes
Via Glenn Greenwald, when running for office in 2008, Obama told the Boston Globe's Charlie Savage:
"The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation."
Greenwald notes:
Given that not even the most ardent interventionists for Syria contend that the bombing is necessary for US national security, how can a military attack on Syria without Congressional approval possibly be reconciled with that position? When the same issue arose with Obama's war in Libya in the absence of Congressional approval (indeed, after Congress expressly rejected its authorization), State Department adviser Harold Koh was forced to repudiate Obama's own words and say he was wrong back then. Who will play that role this time? As is so often the case, there is a much starker debate between candidate Obama and President Obama than there is between the leadership of both political parties in Washington.
Evil thought of the day:
Have the House PASS an approval to attack Syria. But make it conditional on repealing Obamacare. . .( and not effective until the Senate votes to repeal. . .)
Keith Glass at September 1, 2013 2:56 PM
1963: "I have a dream".
2013: "I have a drone."
jefe at September 1, 2013 4:50 PM
Good plan, Keith. Ensuring we don't go into Syria should be the key goal of Congress. Your suggestion would accomplish that.
CHD at September 1, 2013 11:40 PM
So far the only positive reason, if you can call it that, for attacking Syria would be to back up Obama's threat. That's not worth a single life, or even a single dollar to me.
They don't like us now, they won't like us, no matter who wins and no matter what we do, or don't do. Let's just call them Bad and Worse, and it doesn't matter which side gets which label. When they get tired of killing each other, they'll stop.
MarkD at September 2, 2013 6:22 AM
I don't think there's any stomach for this in either the House or Senate. If it were to come to a vote, it would go down in flames.
Therefore, do not expect the Senate to bring it to a vote. The House will bring it to a vote, and we will finally have some bipartisanship as they vote no.
Now, if you told me we had a good idea of were the chemical weapons are stored, and that we had an adequate payload that would neutralize them, that would be worth doing. But all this saber rattling has driven those special weapons to be dispersed, and if we knew were they had been stored, they're no longer there.
Also, there are elements within the rebellion, allied with al Queda, that seek those same weapons. I'm still not convinced that the release of sarin gas was Assad's handy work.
The truly evil approach is one I've advocated: make sure the rebels have enough support to keep Assad fighting for his life, but not so much as to win outright.
Make the Iranians, Hezbollah, and the Russians pay in treasure and blood for their support of Assad. Allow al Queda to bask in the glory of their martyrs deaths as they do our dirty work. It will be vast, wicked, and nasty.
When they get tired of killing each other, they'll stop.
That might happen when there is less than 100 combatants on both sides...
I R A Darth Aggie at September 2, 2013 11:32 AM
You want to stop unneccessary wars?
Make it a condition of any war that half the seated members of congress are selected in a lottery and one of their decedents are all assigned to the same company and put on the front lines, and one of the presidents kids too
lujlp at September 2, 2013 1:29 PM
Leave a comment