Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Over 50 House Democrats oppose "unwise war... without adhering to constitutional requirements."
At least 52 co-signers have signed Rep. Barbara Lee's letter, stating, "While the ongoing human rights violations and continued loss of life are horrific, they should not draw us into an unwise war - especially without adhering to our own constitutional requirements."
(Interestingly, in some of the sloppiest reporting of the day, the Washington Post used this letter as the basis for a misleading headline which blared,
"More than 50 House Democrats also want Syria strike resolution",
and began with the line,
"There appears to be notable bipartisan support for a formal congressional resolution authorizing a U.S. military strike on Syria...",
leaving it to those who read beyond the headlines to discover that Democrats were opposing unwise, unauthorized action, and asserting their constitutional responsibilities, not clamoring for military strikes, as the Post's misleading headline suggested.)
The full text of Rep. Lee's letter, available at Rep. Lee's Congressional website:
August 29, 2013
President Barack Obama
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20500
Dear Mr. President:
We join you and the international community in expressing unequivocal condemnation over the news that chemical weapons were reportedly used by the government of Syria.
While we understand that as Commander in Chief you have a constitutional obligation to protect our national interests from direct attack, Congress has the constitutional obligation and power to approve military force, even if the United States or its direct interests (such as embassies) have not been attacked or threatened with an attack.
As such, we strongly urge you to seek an affirmative decision of Congress prior to committing any U.S. military engagement to this complex crisis.
While the ongoing human rights violations and continued loss of life are horrific, they should not draw us into an unwise war - especially without adhering to our own constitutional requirements.
We strongly support the work within the United Nations Security Council to build international consensus condemning the alleged use of chemical weapons and preparing an appropriate response; we should also allow the U.N. inspectors the space and time necessary to do their jobs, which are so crucial to ensuring accountability.
As elected officials, we have a duty to represent the will and priorities of our constituents, consistent with the Constitution we all swore to uphold and defend. Before weighing the use of military force, Congress must fully debate and consider the facts and every alternative, as well as determine how best to end the violence and protect civilians. We stand ready to work with you.
http://lee.house.gov/sites/lee.house.gov/files/Lee%20Letter%20to%20President%20Obama_Syria.pdf
58 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
= new reply since forum marked as read
This is very good to hear. 
An enthusiastic K&R!
A true patriot 
Shameless WaPo 
All I can think about is Bush Jr's. shit faced grin, childish chuckle and derp'ish head bob as he proclaimed "I'm a war president now".
I was asking a good friend where the Democrats were on this proposed strike. Thankfully this answers that question. I will forward this info to my friend who will also be happy to see this.
"'Traitor', 'coward', 'communist.' Choose the name, I've been called it in the last few weeks," says Representative Barbara Lee, Democrat of California. "Some of it has been very harsh, very harsh."
The Congresswoman's voice trails off. Along with the name-calling came threats on her life. She moves around Washington these days shadowed by a plainclothes police officer who has been assigned to serve as a 'round-the-clock bodyguard.
What did Lee do to earn such threats?
On September 14, she voted against the House bill that granted President Bush broad authority to use force to counter the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. She was the sole member of Congress to do so. "I am convinced," she said on the House floor, "that military action will not prevent further acts of international terrorism against the United States."
In the face of polls suggesting that close to 90 percent of Americans favored some use of force in response to the attacks, Lee's dissent was risky. "Obviously, this was not a poll-driven decision," she jokes.
Lee objected to several aspects of the resolution. "It did not identify who we were to be fighting," she says. "It did not contain an end strategy. The bottom line is to save lives and to make the world a more peaceful place. We can't do that by moving in a direction that will create a cycle of violence. As a nation, we've got to understand the implications of what we are doing."
She also objected to Congress abdicating its constitutional role.
"Congress," she argues, "has a responsibility to step back and say, 'Let's not rush to judgment.' Let us insist that our democracy works by ensuring the checks and balances are in place and that Congress is part of the decision making process in terms of when we go to war and with whom. This resolution really took away that ability of Congress to play a role, and I don't think that's a good thing. I think we disenfranchised the American people."
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Political_Reform/Lone_Dissenter_BLee.html
The Congresswoman's voice trails off. Along with the name-calling came threats on her life. She moves around Washington these days shadowed by a plainclothes police officer who has been assigned to serve as a 'round-the-clock bodyguard.
What did Lee do to earn such threats?
On September 14, she voted against the House bill that granted President Bush broad authority to use force to counter the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. She was the sole member of Congress to do so. "I am convinced," she said on the House floor, "that military action will not prevent further acts of international terrorism against the United States."
In the face of polls suggesting that close to 90 percent of Americans favored some use of force in response to the attacks, Lee's dissent was risky. "Obviously, this was not a poll-driven decision," she jokes.
Lee objected to several aspects of the resolution. "It did not identify who we were to be fighting," she says. "It did not contain an end strategy. The bottom line is to save lives and to make the world a more peaceful place. We can't do that by moving in a direction that will create a cycle of violence. As a nation, we've got to understand the implications of what we are doing."
She also objected to Congress abdicating its constitutional role.
"Congress," she argues, "has a responsibility to step back and say, 'Let's not rush to judgment.' Let us insist that our democracy works by ensuring the checks and balances are in place and that Congress is part of the decision making process in terms of when we go to war and with whom. This resolution really took away that ability of Congress to play a role, and I don't think that's a good thing. I think we disenfranchised the American people."
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Political_Reform/Lone_Dissenter_BLee.html
A GREAT Democrat & Patriot.
We need more leaders like Barbara Lee.
