http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/sep/01/obama-congress-syria-authorization It's certainly preferable to have the president seek Congressional approval than not seek it before involving the US in yet another Middle East war of choice, but that's only true if the vote is deemed to be something more than an empty, symbolic ritual. To declare ahead of time that the debate the President has invited and the Congressional vote he sought are nothing more than non-binding gestures - they will matter only if the outcome is what the President wants it to be - is to display a fairly strong contempt for both democracy and the Constitution. BombingThere are few things more bizarre than watching people advocate that another country be bombed even while acknowledging that it will achieve no good outcomes other than safeguarding the "credibility" of those doing the bombing. Relatedly, it's hard to imagine a more potent sign of a weak, declining empire than having one's national "credibility" depend upon periodically bombing other countries. UPDATEAccording to the Guardian's Spencer Ackerman, Secretary of State John Kerry, this morning on CNN, said this when asked whether the Congressional vote would be binding: "[Obama] has the right to do this no matter what Congress does." </blockquote>I hope Congress does vote it down, just so that he goes in anyway. How quickly the moves to impeach will escalate afterwards... And an armed march on DC like Kokesh wanted to do wouldn't seem like such a radical move afterwards either, I'm thinking. Although I doubt it will happen, too much lobby money is going to push for their approval.
I think I posted a part of this in the thoughts forum. Very disturbing line.. "It's a potent sign of how low the American political bar is set that gratitude is expressed because a US president says he will ask Congress to vote before he starts bombing another country that is not attacking or threatening the US."
i think at this point, obama is very determined to attack syria...he may be asking for congressional approval, but in all reality, it wouldn't matter to him or not, because either way he gets his way....noting all the executive orders he has done without getting voted on, and now there are people out their praising him, for deciding to get congressional approval....wtf is going on?...
Obama 'has the right' to strike Syria regardless of Congress vote, says Kerry Secretary of state says the US has evidence that sarin gas was used in chemical attacks, as the Obama administration seeks to persuade congressional skeptics of military action. The US has evidence that sarin nerve gas was used in chemical attacks outside Damascus last month and could go ahead with military strikes against Bashar al-Assad's regime even without the backing of Congress, the US secretary of state, John Kerry, has said. A day after Barack Obama vowed to put any intervention in Syria to a vote of both the Senate and House of Representatives, Kerry said the administration was confident of winning a motion of the kind that David Cameron unexpectedly lost last week. "We don't contemplate that the Congress is going to vote no," Kerry said, but he stressed the president had the right to take action "no matter what Congress does". In a round of appearances on the Sunday political shows in the US, Kerry said the evidence of sarin came from samples from first responders who had helped victims of the attacks. "[We have] blood and hair samples that have come to us through a secure chain of custody from east Damascus – it has tested positive for signatures of sarin. So each day that goes by this case is even stronger," he said. Kerry said America's evidence for the use of sarin nerve gas had not come from the UN. He gave no further details of the source of the samples, or where or when they had been tested. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/01/obama-strike-syria-congress-kerry