Closed Door Congressional Meeting for War Authorization?

[Cameron]

I think most people would agree that, to the extent possible, it would be sensible for the President to always get congressional approval before engaging in military force against a foreign country (except in self defense).

However, in some situations, the time it takes to get approval from Congress can give the other country time to make a military strike far less effective.

Would it make sense to have some procedure where the president could get a vote from Congress, or perhaps a congressional committee, without the public, the media, and (most importantly) the target knowing about it?

 

[ttwtt78640]

I think most people would agree that, to the extent possible, it would be sensible for the President to always get congressional approval before engaging in military force against a foreign country (except in self defense).

However, in some situations, the time it takes to get approval from Congress can give the other country time to make a military strike far less effective.

Would it make sense to have some procedure where the president could get a vote from Congress, or perhaps a congressional committee, without the public, the media, and (most importantly) the target knowing about it?

Isn't that what gave us PPACA?

 

[sawdust]

Most transparent administration ever. I think that's what I remember Barry saying.

 

[Risky Thicket]

I think most people would agree that, to the extent possible, it would be sensible for the President to always get congressional approval before engaging in military force against a foreign country (except in self defense).

However, in some situations, the time it takes to get approval from Congress can give the other country time to make a military strike far less effective.

Would it make sense to have some procedure where the president could get a vote from Congress, or perhaps a congressional committee, without the public, the media, and (most importantly) the target knowing about it?

Only Congress has the Constitutional authority to declare war. Congress should debate a declaration of war in the full view of the People as it is the People's business and as the People will suffer and sacrifice as a result.

 

[TiredOfLife]

Only Congress has the Constitutional authority to declare war. Congress should debate a declaration of war in the full view of the People as it is the People's business and as the People will suffer and sacrifice as a result.

Congress hasn't declared war since we were fighting the Japs. Now we call them the Japanese and love their electronics and porn.

 

[Risky Thicket]

I'd like to vote on sending Congress to Syria.

 

[Cameron]

I'd like to vote on sending Congress to Syria.

You are not the only one.

Majority approve sending Congress to Syria

 

[SBu]

I think most people would agree that, to the extent possible, it would be sensible for the President to always get congressional approval before engaging in military force against a foreign country (except in self defense).

However, in some situations, the time it takes to get approval from Congress can give the other country time to make a military strike far less effective.

Would it make sense to have some procedure where the president could get a vote from Congress, or perhaps a congressional committee, without the public, the media, and (most importantly) the target knowing about it?

I don't think so. This is why the President has the war powers act. To deal with immediate military force requirements. I would agree with you that getting congressional support should be more of the norm than a rarity. If the president needs to bypass Congress for expedient necessity, that's fine, but really should approach congress shortly after for continued involvement...and 60 days before this must happen is too much.

 

[MaggieD]

I think most people would agree that, to the extent possible, it would be sensible for the President to always get congressional approval before engaging in military force against a foreign country (except in self defense).

However, in some situations, the time it takes to get approval from Congress can give the other country time to make a military strike far less effective.

Would it make sense to have some procedure where the president could get a vote from Congress, or perhaps a congressional committee, without the public, the media, and (most importantly) the target knowing about it?

Of course it would. But that would require leadership from The White House. Maybe next time.

 

[thinkforyoursel]

Obama needs to ignore the American people and do what's best in the Syria situation ....that is to Strike at Assad....and arm the rebels to finish the job.

The polls mean nothing in my view ...because most Americans and congress DID support the Iraq war. And today we all see how RIGHT.... they were back then.

In addition much of the opposition has no merit simply because it's coming from people who oppose the president on everything.

When those opposing the war want to believe Assad and Putin's version of the Syria situation over the President....I say it's time Obama tune them out and do what his better judgment tells him.

 

[Captain Adverse]

Obama needs to ignore the American people and do what's best in the Syria situation ....that is to Strike at Assad....and arm the rebels to finish the job.

The polls mean nothing in my view ...because most Americans and congress DID support the Iraq war. And today we all see how RIGHT.... they were back then.

In addition much of the opposition has no merit simply because it's coming from people who oppose the president on everything.

When those opposing the war want to believe Assad and Putin's version of the Syria situation over the President....I say it's time Obama tune them out and do what his better judgment tells him.

Really? Let me ask you something. Are you currently serving as an active duty member of our armed forces? I ask for a couple of reasons. First, I am aware that there are always some guys on active duty who are looking for a fight and want to go "kick ass and take names." Usually they are younger troops who haven't seen combat and are raring to go and get some to show they got the "right stuff." Of course there are also always some senior officer types who want to get a medal or two before they retire. Or maybe you are veteran, and thinking of the glory days of service?

The other reason I ask is because if you are not in military service, why do you act like war is some kind of video game? Do you think there is a "reset button" or you "level up" and get a new life if your player dies? Do you think service members are pawns in some geopolitical game and their lives have no intrinsic value? It never ceases to amaze me how people who haven't a clue are so willing to risk OTHER peoples lives for some passing opinion about how things "ought to be done over there."

War is not a game, it is serious business. Service men are trained to do their duty, and they do it well. They are sworn to obey the lawful orders of their superiors, and to engage in combat in defense of this nation. They will go where they are ordered and fight to accomplish the mission to the best of their ability. However, they have a right to expect that their sacrifice is not for some vain purpose or to prove some foolish political point. They are not chips in some high stakes poker game, they are Americans ready and able to lay their lives on the line for this country.

I just wish people would remember that when they sit back and spout crap about "we need to do this or that" when it is not "we" but "they" who are doing the fighting and risking their all for God and Country. So THINK about what you are REALLY saying when you expect others to fight and die for your "ideals." Do "we" really NEED to be involved in Syria? Really? Enough so that YOU are going to go down to your local recruiter and enlist for the privilege of sharing the risks? Otherwise....

 

[thinkforyoursel]

Really? Let me ask you something. Are you currently serving as an active duty member of our armed forces? I ask for a couple of reasons. First, I am aware that there are always some guys on active duty who are looking for a fight and want to go "kick ass and take names." Usually they are younger troops who haven't seen combat and are raring to go and get some to show they got the "right stuff." Of course there are also always some senior officer types who want to get a medal or two before they retire. Or maybe you are veteran, and thinking of the glory days of service?

The other reason I ask is because if you are not in military service, why do you act like war is some kind of video game? Do you think there is a "reset button" or you "level up" and get a new life if your player dies? Do you think service members are pawns in some geopolitical game and their lives have no intrinsic value? It never ceases to amaze me how people who haven't a clue are so willing to risk OTHER peoples lives for some passing opinion about how things "ought to be done over there."

War is not a game, it is serious business. Service men are trained to do their duty, and they do it well. They are sworn to obey the lawful orders of their superiors, and to engage in combat in defense of this nation. They will go where they are ordered and fight to accomplish the mission to the best of their ability. However, they have a right to expect that their sacrifice is not for some vain purpose or to prove some foolish political point. They are not chips in some high stakes poker game, they are Americans ready and able to lay their lives on the line for this country.

I just wish people would remember that when they sit back and spout crap about "we need to do this or that" when it is not "we" but "they" who are doing the fighting and risking their all for God and Country. So THINK about what you are REALLY saying when you expect others to fight and die for your "ideals." Do "we" really NEED to be involved in Syria? Really? Enough so that YOU are going to go down to your local recruiter and enlist for the privilege of sharing the risks? Otherwise....

War is not a game ...really? You need to take that lecture to right wing members on this board. Because that's exactly the feeling I got a few years ago when thousands of troops were sent off to invade Iraq.

Fight them over there ...so we don't have to fight them here??? Remember those quotes ....from the right? How sick was that when 100.000 Iraqis were butchered because we invaded a relatively stable country and turned into a hell hole?

let me give you another example ....your right wing pal are unashamed in proclaiming ....ONLY 6000 GI's died ...that's not so bad! I find that argument so repulsive ...so horrifying for any fallen GI family member to hear. Yet the right wing keep repeating that line.

Oh...how about the SURGE...remember that gem?

So take your dam lecture and shove it ...there were no better juvenile display than what we've seen by the NEOCONS and the arm-chair warriors on the right during the Iraq war.

How about Rush Limbaugh Shawn Hannity Dick cheney ARI Fleicher and Bush ....what do they all have in common ....never been in battle..... and had the arrogance to question a warrior like John Kerry!!

Those are the very same mouth piece talking today.

But again the facts shows that Obama has being more thoughtful and deliberate than the emotional right wing.
Obama was right on Iraq ...he got Bin laden ...why on earth would any rationale person listen to the very people who've been so wrong on Iraq?

You people can't hit the RESET button ....IRAQ...IRAQ ...IRAQ ...will always be front and center making your judgment suspect!!

Let me repeat... those people should be ignored by the President ...and he should STRIKE Assad!!

 

[Ari]

Obama needs to ignore the American people and do what's best in the Syria situation ....that is to Strike at Assad....and arm the rebels to finish the job.

The polls mean nothing in my view ...because most Americans and congress DID support the Iraq war. And today we all see how RIGHT.... they were back then.

In addition much of the opposition has no merit simply because it's coming from people who oppose the president on everything.

When those opposing the war want to believe Assad and Putin's version of the Syria situation over the President....I say it's time Obama tune them out and do what his better judgment tells him.

Do you realize the rebels aren't any better than Assad? They're happy to kill innocents too. An intervention in Syria would do nothing in the long term. That region will remain unstable. Ignoring the american people in this situation would be unwise.

 

[Captain Adverse]

War is not a game ...really? You need to take that lecture to right wing members on this board. Because that's exactly the feeling I got a few years ago when thousands of troops were sent off to invade Iraq.

Fight them over there ...so we don't have to fight them here??? Remember those quotes ....from the right? How sick was that when 100.000 Iraqis were butchered because we invaded a relatively stable country and turned into a hell hole?

let me give you another example ....your right wing pal are unashamed in proclaiming ....ONLY 6000 GI's died ...that's not so bad! I find that argument so repulsive ...so horrifying for any fallen GI family member to hear. Yet the right wing keep repeating that line.

Oh...how about the SURGE...remember that gem?

So take your dam lecture and shove it ...there were no better juvenile display than what we've seen by the NEOCONS and the arm-chair warriors on the right during the Iraq war.

How about Rush Limbaugh Shawn Hannity Dick cheney ARI Fleicher and Bush ....what do they all have in common ....never been in battle..... and had the arrogance to question a warrior like John Kerry!!

Those are the very same mouth piece talking today.

But again the facts shows that Obama has being more thoughtful and deliberate than the emotional right wing.
Obama was right on Iraq ...he got Bin laden ...why on earth would any rationale person listen to the very people who've been so wrong on Iraq?

You people can't hit the RESET button ....IRAQ...IRAQ ...IRAQ ...will always be front and center making your judgment suspect!!

Let me repeat... those people should be ignored by the President ...and he should STRIKE Assad!!

Who do you think you are? My "damn lecture" to you is the same one I used after 9/11 when people were rushing to support a War on Terror. It's the same view I expressed when people were stampeding to get behind Bush Jr. and his "WMD" rationale to attack Iraq.

The Middle East is NOT our business. The Congo is NOT our business. You want to know an example of something that IS our business? Pirates who attack our shipping and terrorist cells who organize assaults on our nation, wherever they are located around the world. These can be handled with good hard intelligence as to location followed by surgical strikes using Delta and SEAL teams without anyone knowing we've acted until AFTER they are done. Those would be good use of the President's war powers without a declaration of war by Congress.

In all other instances, short of a direct attack by a sovereign nation on us or our allies, we should not be allowing Presidents to commit major military forces in "police actions" like Vietnam, or Iraq, or Afghanistan again!

Your little rant about Iraq does not justify your support for military intervention in Syria. On the contrary, it shows a perfect example of why we should not intervene in Syria. Iraq was wrong and intervention in Syria is wrong; a prior bad act does nothing to justify your desire to take another bad act. The fact that you depend upon such a fallacious argument to support your position shows how utterly foolish and groundless your basic premise is.