Snappo
Banned
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2013
- Messages
- 376
- Reaction score
- 57
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian
Kucinich and I disagree on, well, most things. I think that I can agree with him on this. I don't think we have anything to gain in Syria and if we eliminate the current government we side with al Qaeda.
I agree. What is going on in Syria really needs to be sorted out amongst the Arab League. OTOH, Obama is worried the problems in Syria could bleed over to Israel or could reach a USA military base in the region. That is why he is concerned and feeling we have to do something. From the Yahoo news wire this afternoon:
Does Obama need congressional approval to bomb Syria?
Interestingly, Obama himself made a similar argument while on the campaign trail six years ago. He told the Boston Globe in 2007 that no president can use military force absent an “actual or imminent threat to the nation” without first getting Congress' approval. (Vice President Joe Biden, for his part, vowed to impeach President George W. Bush in 2007 if he bombed Iran without first getting approval from Congress.)
White House press secretary Jay Carney said on Tuesday that the president still stands by his 2007 statement, but that Syria’s alleged use of chemical weapons does pose an actual and imminent threat to U.S. national security. Obama said last week that if chemical weapons are used on a large scale, they could affect “core national interests,” such as America’s duty to protect its allies and bases in the Middle East.
The U.S. Constitution says it's up to Congress to declare war and to fund the military. The 1973 War Powers Resolution allows presidents to deploy troops when there's a "national emergency" caused by an attack on the country or its possessions, but then gives the executive only 60 days to get congressional approval or withdraw troops. Presidents in the past have become engaged in conflicts without first checking with Congress and have stretched the definition of "national emergency."