I guess this is what a democracy looks like.

[kpete]

Last edited Sat Aug 31, 2013, 02:28 PM - Edit history (1)

To the Editor:

So Prime Minister David Cameron cannot wage war without the consent of the British people as represented by Parliament. I guess this is what a democracy looks like.

BRIAN DEIMLING
Brooklyn, Aug. 30, 2013

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/31/opinion/an-attack-on-syria-the-tension-rises.html


UPDATE!!!

Obama makes the right choice and will present his case on Syria to the whole Congress for a vote

Obama’s remarks came as senior administration officials were making a fresh round of calls to congressional leaders on Saturday in an effort to bolster support for a potential military strike on Syria, officials said.

Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel and Gen. Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, were among the administration officials expected to speak to key members of Congress on Saturday afternoon, amid signs that the White House is close to ordering an attack on Syria to admonish it for its alleged use of chemical weapons last week.

“We’re continuing to weigh our options,” a senior U.S. official said. “We’re confident in our analysis that the United States and our allies can handle any contingencies that come as a result of military action should it be chosen by the president.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/obama-set-to-speak-on-syria-in-rose-garden/2013/08/31/65aea210-125b-11e3-85b6-d27422650fd5_story.html

[bvar22]

1. DURec.

The founders were very clear that in the US we will have a "President",
and NOT a King.

[polichick]

3. k&r

[gopiscrap]

4. Yeah I wish we would have an honest conversation

in our congress about this.

[99th_Monkey]

5. Looks like you just got your wish. happy days. nt

[gopiscrap]

7. Not sure it will be an honest discussion.

[riderinthestorm]

6. Kick in light of Obama's comments. nt

[uhnope]

8. this is what American democracy with a great Democratic president looks like.

[iamthebandfanman]

9. You mean dead children?

being massacred every minute while we wait on a bunch of hypocrits who worship how much money they can make off of their job decide whether its okay or not (at least here in the states)?

ha! democracy.

[allinthegame]

10. please explain

why all of this is happening because of "the children". Hundreds of thousands have been killed in a senseless civil war that we have no right to be involved in. However, now that the children have been killed (not that there are not many amongst those already killed)
we are ready to bomb Syria to no avail.
Obama himself brings up the dead children in every speech he has made. Sadly, although it is sad, it is no reason to cowboy forward where we do not belong.

[SCVDem]

12. Meanwhile, American gun deaths contimue to rise.

We want to blow the crap out of Syria over dead children yet we cannot even pass legislation to protect our own.

The means of death seems irrelevant.

[Bluenorthwest]

15. I think you couch your argument in the arms of dead kids because if you simply said you abhore

the democratic process, people would notice.

[Squinch]

11. Rec for the update.

[DhhD]

13. Shock and Awe Bombing of Baghdad in March 2003.

Who was the target? Civilans of course.

[Bluenorthwest]

16. Some here think that was all 'surgical precision smart bombing' which kills only the guilty while

issuing the innocents $20 gift cards for Amazon.com

[Faryn Balyncd]

14. Agree

[Jack Rabbit]

17. This is a step in the right direction

In a better constructed system based on separation of powers, the idea of taking any kind of action, regardless of its merits, would begin in Congress, would be debated there and the result would be given to the President to carry out as Commander-in-Chief. If Congress votes to do nothing, the Commander-in-Chief would do nothing. The President would be a technocrat whose duty is to see the law faithfully executed and would be overstepping his bounds to commit troops on his own, as some recent presidents have asserted the right to do. There would be no serious discussion about whether the President should be impeached for doing such a thing; he would be impeached, period, even if committing troops was a good idea in the situation.

The structural problems we have faced in governing the nation haven't proceeded from democracy, but from the lack of it. It was an early mistake to allow the executive branch to become as political as the legislative branch. The presidency was designed by the Founding Fathers with the idea that George Washington would be the first to hold the office, whether he liked it or not. General Washington remains the only president who never actively sought the office. Washington was our only technocratic president, even though the word didn't exist in the eighteenth century. He was not a political animal. He never sought personal power and his political role models were Cato, a staunch defender of the Roman Republic, and Cincinnatus, It can certainly be argued that a technocratic executive is what the Founding Fathers

That and getting private money out of election campaigns for public office are the two most important things to be done once we beat back the crisis of corporatists attempting to take over the government and destroy American democracy.

[tecelote]

18. Going to war should be done only by a vote of the people.

I say this for moral reasons and also because I do not believe that "the people" are represented in Washington.

[Yo_Mama]

19. Our Constitution requires that the president do this.

I am so very glad that he is doing it.