General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsThe President should seek an AUMF v Syria
I'd wager it would NOT be approved. Then President Obama has a face-saving way out of the corner he painted himself into AND we have the happy result of saddling the GOP with the precedent of a President who did not get congressional authorization and then proceeded to NOT attack.
Volaris
(10,269 posts)and then it will be time for the GOP lunatics to all run for President again, and the totally ridiculous argument will get made that the current President (oh a Democrat BTW) is a great big wussy because he didn't have the moxy to just tell Congress to go to hell and do what he KNEW was the Moral, Righteous, AMERICAN, Godly thing to do (start another war because it's good for business, you see), and because of that NO DEMOCRAT EVER is qualified to be elected by the American People.
And yeah, it's laughable, until it happens, and we remember that we SAID it would happen, and the bought little bitches in the media just kind of pretend that it didn't REALLY happen, because you know those Crazy Liberals and their "History", and their "Sources" and their whatnot.
Until they start getting called on their hyprocrasy, they won't care, they have no reason too.
But I agree with your idea, and I approve. Also, we shouldn't need a POLITICAL reason for doing so, and I wish we didn't.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)KittyWampus
(55,894 posts)Someone suggested that.
Surveillance has been trained on Syria and now they might even have a better idea where Assad has chemical weapons etc. after watching troop movements last few days.
leveymg
(36,418 posts)We should be demanding a Congressional vote on this, anyway, as there is no emergency need to commit US forces.
The Administration needs to release the intercepts it got from the Israelis and whatever other evidence it used to make its own decision. After Iraq, that is essential.