Point 2: Under the War Powers Act, the President may engage Syria at any time and in any fashion, but is required to notify Congress. Congress may then approve or disapprove it by passing a joint resolution. In the event that both Houses of Congress disaprove, the President would then be required to withdraw subject to section 1544 (50 USC 1544).

Point 3: Congress is free to take Sen. Levin’s position to heard and authorize military force against Syria. Not likely, but possible.

Exit question: At this juncture, what’s the difference between Bush and Levin?

I didn’t want to watch that clip, I really didn’t, but after I did, I think I am worthy of asking the question……..

“OK, Ms, Levin, we will deal with Syria, but will you allow us to win?

Levin wants to see some “shock and awe”???

Then let our war machine ROCK. Pick a country Levin. Which one do you want?

He reminds me of the character Mel Brooks played in “Blazing Saddles”. The Governor.(Can’t remember his name)

Playing with a paddle-ball he complains, “Why do I always get a warped one?!?”

[T]he only ways to starve the jihadis would be either to seal the [Syrian] border or to put some hurt on Assad. But where do we find enough troops to do that? We don’t.

It seems Allah says “enough troops,” because he won’t advocate the Americans’ use of their most destructive weaponry against Syria. Because I have few such scruples or restraints, I offer that it’s quite feasible for the U.S. to take Syria out of the picture.

Besides even if we did have some plans to take action against Syria there’s no way we would reveal that here in an open forum just so you and your comrades can take that story and run to the press with it to further your sabatoge against Bush and perputatue his image as a crusading warmonger only after oil. Or would you vote for it first and then if it wasn’t over in 24 hours accuse us of having lied to you about them suppling arms to terrorists in the first place?

We may not have many spare troops but we can make them hurt so bad from the air they’ll wish for American troops.

Actually if Assad knew in his heart of hearts that the B1s were on the way he would sell out Iran in a less than his next trembly heartbeat.

Syria is still the key to Iran, be it by force or by collusion.

Bush means it, Levin doesn’t.

Levin in 1999:

“This is not the time to take risks in undermining those efforts. Those who insist on a debate at this particular moment should think again, or they bear the responsibility for the possible consequences of their actions.”

Levin in 2007:

“I don’t want to put a specific number on (how many troops we want to withdraw from Iraq) because that really should be left to the commanders who decide how many would be needed to carry out those limited functions. But we’ve got to—the issue we’re facing, the key issue is do we want American troops in the middle of a civil war. That’s the fundamental issue which we want to debate. We’ve been wanting to debate that for many, many weeks…”

Perchant on March 1, 2007 at 2:15 PM

Another classic is they don’t have enought equiptment, then they have too much (Arkin).

It’s similar to how they were crying about “not enough troops” right up to the day Bush agreed to a surge, then the rats were nowhere to be seen. If we went to Darfur or any other in vogue “places where we aren’t but should be”, they would change their tune and be in complete opposition, especially if any troops are killed there. The exception would be if Bush wanted to send troops to kill Christians in the Balkans.

Before the Democrats sensed we would actually attack Iraq, they were clamoring for us to overthrow Saddam Hussein. When we attacked Iraq, they claimed Iran and North Korea were the real threats and we should have attacked them. Now that we are on the verge of doing something about Iran militarily, they suddenly claim Iran is not a threat and even want to pass a law forbidding President Bush from attacking it. Now they are saying Syria is a threat.

It is a charage masking their unwillingness ever to go to war against any hostile country.

I like your approach.

Kick their ASS then LEAVE.

The problem is,, is that I think Bush is trying to fight a politically correct war.
I wish he would just “pull the trigger” in Iraq and be done with it.

Agreed. If we need to, we blow them up, again. Look at al-Gaddafi. He thought we couldn’t find him, if he sat in a tent in like the parking lot of Walmart Libya. Reagan blew up his tent. Simple, but got the message across.

amerpundit on March 1, 2007 at 12:02 PM

Gaddafi was not heard from from the time Reagan dropped a couple bombs on him until the first Gulf War when he opened his piehole against the US. He did get the message, until he thought the US was otherwise occupied.

Even then the drive by media was against the US, and Gaddfi didn’t mind using those idiots. I recall the media trumpeting that a child had been killed in the bombing (supposedly), and they were busy reporting how great Gaddafi was when he announced he was immediately adopting that child.

Ah, Levin has a comb over and Bush doesn’t? What do I win???

Good one Babs.

His hair part is about a half inch above his ear now. I think when he is completely bald he will resort to combing over his ear hairs.

paulsur on March 1, 2007 at 12:26 PM

Actualy, not really… The Moslem and especialy Arabic cultures are very revenge oriented. If you simply point out that “here is evidence”… and IMMEDIATLY don’t talk, but take an action, then will will understand, and in many cases respect it.

The Jihadists do not have moral equivalency, they are very black and white in their outlook (somthing the West just can’t get their heads around). One of the reasons the Islamic, and espicialy Arabic, worlds think we are morally bankrupt is that we WON’T use the power we’ve got… so their is no respect there.

If you don’t either fear, or respect, your enemy, there is no reason NOT to fight them.

WE DO NOT NEED TO INVADE TO USE MILITARY POWER!!
There is a little ole historical thing called the punitive raid.

Israel does this all the time to Pals in Gaza. Of course letting them know that “it hurts” when you mess with the big dog is wasted on the Pals. They want to get hurt–heck–they want to die. I was so rooting for a bombs away on Hamas assets in Damascus during the Lebanon time-waste this past summer. Assad is a wuss, though, and I think a few well placed strikes would have a salutary effect on his world-view.