Bipartisan House coalition demands Congressional approval on Syria strike

posted at 2:01 pm on August 28, 2013 by Ed Morrissey

Rising discontent among members of Congress over being bypassed on Syria has a distinctly bipartisan cast, ABC News reports.  A group of eighty-one members of the House will send a letter to President Barack Obama this afternoon demanding that the commander-in-chief seek authorization from Capitol Hill before launching a military attack on a nation that presents no imminent threat to the security of the US.  The group contains a dozen Democrats, and that number may rise:

A growing bipartisan coalition in Congress is coming together to “strongly urge” President Obama “to consult and receive authorization from Congress before ordering the use of U.S. military force in Syria.”

In a letter that will be sent to the president later today, Rep. Scott Rigell, a second-term Republican from Virginia, joins at least 81 of his Republican and Democratic colleagues in demanding that the president first acquire consent from Congress, citing the War Powers Resolution of 1973, before responding militarily to the Syrian government’s purported use of chemical weapons on Aug. 21.

“While the Founders wisely gave the Office of the President the authority to act in emergencies, they foresaw the need to ensure public debate — and the active engagement of Congress — prior to committing U.S. military assets,” the group, which so far includes 69 Republicans and 13 Democrats, writes. “Engaging our military in Syria when no direct threat to the United States exists and without prior congressional authorization would violate the separation of powers that is clearly delineated in the Constitution.”

Rigell has imposed a 3:00 p.m. deadline for lawmakers to sign on before the letter will be sent to the White House.

Why not go to Congress? There is at least as large a bipartisan group urging action, probably more than enough in both chambers to get easy passage of a limited pass.  The authorization would give Obama more political cover on what is undeniably an unpopular action, and spread the blame to both parties.  Chuck Todd suggested yesterday that the White House is afraid that “isolationists” will block the authorization, and that the delay in getting approval would be too great:

Delay? Well, it’s been months since the first time Syria used chemical weapons, which makes a rush to action here moot. Furthermore, the UN wants more time to determine what exactly happened anyway.

Todd also reports that the White House thinks they have ample room under the War Powers Act to use military force without Congressional authorization.  As Andrew Kaczynski and John Ekdahl pointed out yesterday, though, that’s not just a dollop of hypocrisy but a massive serving of it:

Then-Senator Obama likewise agreed with the assessment from Biden saying the President of the United States could only authorize an attack in the instance of “imminent threat” to the nation, responding to a question to a 2008 Boston Globe questionnaire on executive authority.

The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.

As Commander-in-Chief, the President does have a duty to protect and defend the United States. In instances of self-defense, the President would be within his constitutional authority to act before advising Congress or seeking its consent. History has shown us time and again, however, that military action is most successful when it is authorized and supported by the Legislative branch. It is always preferable to have the informed consent of Congress prior to any military action.

As for the specific question about bombing suspected nuclear sites, I recently introduced S.J. Res. 23, which states in part that “any offensive military action taken by the United States against Iran must be explicitly authorized by Congress.” The recent NIE tells us that Iran in 2003 halted its effort to design a nuclear weapon. While this does not mean that Iran is no longer a threat to the United States or its allies, it does give us time to conduct aggressive and principled personal diplomacy aimed at preventing Iran from developing nuclear weapons.

Joe Biden had previously threatened impeachment against George W. Bush for a number of reasons, including the use of the War Powers Act to attack Iran over its nuclear-weapons program, which actually does represent a threat to the US. He even put the argument on his campaign website:

It is precisely because the consequences of war – intended or otherwise – can be so profound and complicated that our Founding Fathers vested in Congress, not the President, the power to initiate war, except to repel an imminent attack on the United States or its citizens. They reasoned that requiring the President to come to Congress first would slow things down… allow for more careful decision making before sending Americans to fight and die… and ensure broader public support.

The Founding Fathers were, as in most things, profoundly right. That’s why I want to be very clear: if the President takes us to war with Iran without Congressional approval, I will call for his impeachment.

I do not say this lightly or to be provocative. I am dead serious. I have chaired the Senate Judiciary Committee. I still teach constitutional law. I’ve consulted with some of our leading constitutional scholars. The Constitution is clear. And so am I.

I’m saying this now to put the administration on notice and hopefully to deter the President from taking unilateral action in the last year of his administration. If war is warranted with a nation of 70 million people, it warrants coming to Congress and the American people first.

How much more does this apply to Syria, which represents no direct or imminent threat to the United States? If Biden was “dead serious” then, this just shows how unserious this administration is now.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Like it or not, Bush did seek and get approval for the Afghanistan action, as well as Iraq. In fact, Joe Biden vote for both.

MoreLiberty on August 28, 2013 at 2:04 PM

Old and Busted: Cowboy Diplomacy
New Hotness: Cowboy Diplomacy

Good Lt on August 28, 2013 at 2:05 PM

So, Joe Biden is going to move to impeach Obama over this Syria thing?

Just like Chicago…one capo knocks of the reigning capo…becomes capo tutti capo. The Chicago way.

C’mon, Joe.. There ya go, stand up, Joe! Er, Chuck. Whatev’s.

coldwarrior on August 28, 2013 at 2:05 PM

I’m saying this now to put the administration on notice and hopefully to deter the President from taking unilateral action in the last year of his administration. If war is warranted with a nation of 70 million people, it warrants coming to Congress and the American people first.

yeah, but that was George Bush, evil warmonger, invader and world conqueror, tool of the despicable profiteering arms industry. If Barry has to go to war, prodded to do so reluctantly, for Truth, Justice and teh American Way, so be it, because Barry is The Peacegiver (TM), may his will be done.

hawkeye54 on August 28, 2013 at 2:09 PM

All is proceeding as I have foreseen.

Chris of Rights on August 28, 2013 at 2:06 PM

And so it is.

hawkeye54 on August 28, 2013 at 2:11 PM

I don’t blame them. They know this guy is incompetent.

From the LA Times via AOSHQ.

One U.S. official who has been briefed on the options on Syria said he believed the White House would seek a level of intensity “just muscular enough not to get mocked” but not so devastating that it would prompt a response from Syrian allies Iran and Russia.

So he’s putting men and women in harms way so he won’t be mocked?

Unflipping believable.

WisRich on August 28, 2013 at 2:16 PM

Better idea: Let’s stay the hell out of Syria.

Shump on August 28, 2013 at 2:16 PM

demanding that the commander-in-chief seek authorization from Capitol Hill before launching a military attack on a nation that presents no imminent threat to the security of the US.

The War powers act states Zero must consult and report to congress:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/chapter-33

Under Purpose and Policy:

(c) Presidential executive power as Commander-in-Chief; limitation
The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to
(1) a declaration of war,
(2) specific statutory authorization, or
(3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.

None of these three things have happened. Zero has no authority to attack Syria.

dogsoldier on August 28, 2013 at 2:17 PM

It is precisely because the consequences of war – intended or otherwise – can be so profound and complicated that our Founding Fathers vested in Congress, not the President, the power to initiate war, except to repel an imminent attack on the United States or its citizens. They reasoned that requiring the President to come to Congress first would slow things down… allow for more careful decision making before sending Americans to fight and die… and ensure broader public support.

The Founding Fathers were, as in most things, profoundly right. That’s why I want to be very clear: if the President takes us to war with Iran without Congressional approval, I will call for his impeachment.

This statement is precisely correct even though it turns out to be purely partisan posturing. Otherwise, Joe would be advising against bombing Syria without Congressional approval. So, if bombing happens, I hope some brave reporter will dare ask him about the hypocrisy when he runs for President in 2016.

Happy Nomad on August 28, 2013 at 2:17 PM

Like it or not, Bush did seek and get approval for the Afghanistan action, as well as Iraq. In fact, Joe Biden vote for both.

MoreLiberty on August 28, 2013 at 2:04 PM

Bush knew the WPA did not grant him unilateral authority, except in the three specific instances I copied directly from the text of the act.

Bush asked for and received “Specific Statutory authorization”

Zero has no authority to attack Syria and had none to attack Libya. He broke the law, plain and simple.

dogsoldier on August 28, 2013 at 2:20 PM

Rising discontent among members of Congress over being bypassed on Syria has a distinctly bipartisan cast

Uh Oh….Congress didn’t get their pork…..yet!

repvoter on August 28, 2013 at 2:20 PM

So he’s putting men and women in harms way so he won’t be mocked?

Unflipping believable.

WisRich on August 28, 2013 at 2:16 PM

No, WisRich, it is utterly believable. Mockery is all this thin-skinned bastard cares about. We wouldn’t even be talking about bombing because of a chemical attack other than Obama sees it an affront that his red line was ignored. Had he not made that speech, those ships would be elsewhere.

Happy Nomad on August 28, 2013 at 2:20 PM

Eh, Dog Eater’s bombs and cruise missiles blow innocent brown civilians into bloody chunks using non-judgmental love and global village understanding.

Maybe you KKK worshipers should go back to skool and learn a few things before spouting off.

Bishop on August 28, 2013 at 2:22 PM

Not to worry, hypocrisy is King Barry’s middle name.

Given the feelings of most folks to STAY OUT OF IT, does Congress really want to go on record voting FOR involvement?

Barry is wise to fear that “isolationists” will over rule those wanting us to act.

Also odd that King Barry wants to get involved in the internal problems of another country. Didn’t he castigate our history of getting involved in other’s problems.

Or is just that just another serving of hypocrisy?

GarandFan on August 28, 2013 at 2:23 PM

I know an attack will occur because Bark has ordered the Navy to reassign extra corpsemen to the Sixth Fleet. Did you know that “Corpsemen” is Austrian for “dead medic”?

Bishop on August 28, 2013 at 2:26 PM

He’s afraid of No?

Puhleeze

Yup this would definitely give him cover

cmsinaz on August 28, 2013 at 2:31 PM

In fact, Presidents of both parties have generally considered the WPA to be an unconstitutional limit on their authority since it was enacted. It has been routinely ignored by both parties.

Despite liberal claims about his “illegal war”, GWB might be the only one to have actually followed it pretty much to the letter.

Chris of Rights on August 28, 2013 at 2:33 PM

The azzholes all want to have their signature on one of the biggest disasters ever, about to ensue.

obama will do this for only two reasons:

1. To show Putin who is emperor of the world.

2. For Allah.

There is no strategic or war reason for the US to go to Syria.

obama will have all the blood on his hands if he goes, as he should. He dithered for years and not the clusterfark is simply out of control and he’ll enable Al Quaida and the eventual MB gov’t of Syria.

Wake up stupid world and America. You’re having wool pulled all over your stupid noses. obama is indeed the most transparent president in history but you refuse to see. It’s all in front of you.

Schadenfreude on August 28, 2013 at 2:36 PM

I know an attack will occur because Bark has ordered the Navy to reassign extra corpsemen to the Sixth Fleet. Did you know that “Corpsemen” is Austrian for “dead medic”?

Bishop on August 28, 2013 at 2:26 PM

You’re joking, I know, but I’m getting more and more pissed at how the rat-eared bastard seems to think that he’s playing a game of Risk or Battleship. He’s putting real American blood and treasure at risk for no reason that is in the national interest. He’s bypassing the UN and normal coalition-building activities. He’s decided he doesn’t need to follow the Constitution and get approval from Congress. And there isn’t even an indication he plans on addressing the American people before he goes out and launches missiles.

The men and women on the USS Gravely, USS Mahan, USS Barry, and USS Ramage deserve better from this nation and its CINC than to be treated like a peg in Battleship.

Happy Nomad on August 28, 2013 at 2:37 PM

If Ojackass attacks Syria without congressional approval, on what basis would he not be impeached?

Akzed on August 28, 2013 at 2:38 PM

No, WisRich, it is utterly believable. Mockery is all this thin-skinned bastard cares about.

Happy Nomad on August 28, 2013 at 2:20 PM

We’ll then, he’s lost that battle because Putin, Iran, and China are laughing at him already.

If you’re worring about being mocked, you’ve already lost the battle.

He’s telegraphed virtually the whole scope of the operation: When, how long, number of targets, weapons to be used, that he’s not going after Assad. Just clear your people out, get all your good equipment out and lets get this Kabuki show on the road.

He’s telling Putin: I’m scared shitless. Don’t hurt me.

Furthermore, as much as Assad believes Obama is spineless, he knows we took out Kadafi. He know the U.S. military is deadly. Why would he use chemical weapons then?

But if your Al-Qaeda rebels, knowing that you could draw in the U.S. with a chemical attack on people that you really don’t care about. Why wouldn’t they do it. It worked in Egypt.

WisRich on August 28, 2013 at 2:40 PM

The response could very well be terror attacks here, which is entirely foreseeable, and must therefore be considered a desired effect of an attack on Syria.

Akzed on August 28, 2013 at 2:40 PM

Akzed on August 28, 2013 at 2:38 PM

They didn’t impeach him over Libya and they should have.

dogsoldier on August 28, 2013 at 2:41 PM

But if your Al-Qaeda rebels, knowing that you could draw in the U.S. with a chemical attack on people that you really don’t care about. Why wouldn’t they do it. It worked in Egypt.

WisRich on August 28, 2013 at 2:40 PM

I didn’t mean to imply chemical attacks in Egypt, just that they toppled the gov’t with Obama’s help.

WisRich on August 28, 2013 at 2:42 PM

It wasn’t an attack attack.
MSM
When he gives the order will he have his bike helmet on?

docflash on August 28, 2013 at 2:42 PM

But if your Al-Qaeda rebels, knowing that you could draw in the U.S. with a chemical attack on people that you really don’t care about. Why wouldn’t they do it. It worked in Egypt. WisRich on August 28, 2013 at 2:40 PM

According to the Koran, killing or being killed in jihad sends one to paradise. So in the twisted mind of Muslims, the civilians they killed are benefited.

Akzed on August 28, 2013 at 2:43 PM

We’ll then, he’s lost that battle because Putin, Iran, and China are laughing at him already.

WisRich on August 28, 2013 at 2:40 PM

He doesn’t care about them. He’s in danger of becoming a laughingstock in the United States despite the best efforts of the media. All that bluster about the Arab Spring. The apology tour where he told our enemies that America was evil. The alienation of our allies. It is all coming to a head in the middle east.

This is all about the filthy bastard’s legacy. As things stand, the hall of accomplishments at his library at Univ. of Chicago are going to be might bare other than the Nobel prize, requisite mock-up of the Oval Office, and pictures of the vacations, concerts, and golf trips.

Happy Nomad on August 28, 2013 at 2:48 PM

Bipartisan House coalition demands Congressional approval on Syria strike

And if Obama doesn’t give it, Boehner will cry.

So he’s putting men and women in harms way so he won’t be mocked?

Unflipping believable.

WisRich on August 28, 2013 at 2:16 PM

Limbaugh mentioned yesterday that he thinks this entire affair was initiated to try and cover Obama’s “red line” gaffe so he didn’t look bad. Obama’s probably also mad at Putin about Snowden and gay marriage, and this is part of the hissy fit he’s been throwing.

I’m getting kind of concerned about what will happen if the Russians decide to push back against Obama militarily. Will Obama have the guts to shoot back at them or will he meekly creep home with his tail between his legs?

Doomberg on August 28, 2013 at 2:48 PM

The congress no longer represents the people of the land.

2014, all out. No less will wake the fools up.

Otherwise, deserve them, in full.

Schadenfreude on August 28, 2013 at 2:50 PM

I’m getting kind of concerned about what will happen if the Russians decide to push back against Obama militarily. Will Obama have the guts to shoot back at them or will he meekly creep home with his tail between his legs?

Doomberg on August 28, 2013 at 2:48 PM

Putin provided Assad with some anti ship missiles. If we attack Assad, expect all manner of responses. Assad may even use WMDs against our military.

dogsoldier on August 28, 2013 at 2:55 PM

Putin provided Assad with some anti ship missiles. If we attack Assad, expect all manner of responses. Assad may even use WMDs against our military.

dogsoldier on August 28, 2013 at 2:55 PM

I’m less worried about what Assad will do than whether Russia decides to intervene directly on Assad’s behalf with their own men, air force, etc. Obama’s weakness is so provocative that they might feel bold enough to do it, and they might even be able to get away with it if they do it.

Doomberg on August 28, 2013 at 2:59 PM

I’m getting kind of concerned about what will happen if the Russians decide to push back against Obama militarily. Will Obama have the guts to shoot back at them or will he meekly creep home with his tail between his legs?

Doomberg on August 28, 2013 at 2:48 PM

Good point. Isn’t the President scheduled to be in Russia in the near future ?

Already was a problem due to Snowden. An attack on Syria would make such a visit a tad uncomfortable.

Jabberwock on August 28, 2013 at 2:59 PM

I’m getting kind of concerned about what will happen if the Russians decide to push back against Obama militarily. Will Obama have the guts to shoot back at them or will he meekly creep home with his tail between his legs?

Doomberg on August 28, 2013 at 2:48 PM

My fear too. Does Putin think there’s a strategic advantage in pushing back militarily? I don’t know. I think we can all agree that Putin thinks Obama is a coward but he also know there are forces behind Obama that would force him to escalate.

Freaking geo-political gamesmanship which could turn into brinkmanship over a country that we have no interest in.

WisRich on August 28, 2013 at 3:01 PM

If I gave you a pistol to shoot someone, I’d be an accomplice. Russia giving Assad anti-ship missiles means that, if a ship is hit by one, Russia’s an accomplice.

So Russia already pushed back against Ojackass.

Akzed on August 28, 2013 at 3:04 PM

I’m less worried about what Assad will do than whether Russia decides to intervene directly on Assad’s behalf with their own men, air force, etc. Obama’s weakness is so provocative that they might feel bold enough to do it, and they might even be able to get away with it if they do it.

Doomberg on August 28, 2013 at 2:59 PM

If Russia decides to defend Assad Zero will go all in. His ego and his thin skin will cause all manner of trouble. I would be worried about Assad though. The Russians trained his people and gave them sophisticated weapons.

Assad using WMDs against our forces and civilians is likely.

dogsoldier on August 28, 2013 at 3:05 PM

It’s not hypocrisy when they do it. Says so on page 2340 of the Obamakill mandate. Or was that page 2740?
Bet evertime Chuck Todd opens his mouth it smells just like Barry’s @ss. If you could get Brian Williams, C. Matthews, any of the lamestream Java Joe’s to stand beside him when he does, but then none of them would sniff and tell.
Lose their place in line, that they’ve sucked so hard to get to.
I’m thinking a Miley/Diane Sawyer t’shirt maybe. You know, for the next Cronkite award luncheon. Maybe a Chuck Todd/Joe Dirt tee for the guys.

onomo on August 28, 2013 at 3:06 PM

Just What the Founders Feared: An Imperial President Goes to War

My how things have changed since 2007…

Marcus Traianus on August 28, 2013 at 3:18 PM

I’m getting kind of concerned about what will happen if the Russians decide to push back against Obama militarily. Will Obama have the guts to shoot back at them or will he meekly creep home with his tail between his legs?

Doomberg on August 28, 2013 at 2:48 PM

My fear too. Does Putin think there’s a strategic advantage in pushing back militarily? I don’t know. I think we can all agree that Putin thinks Obama is a coward but he also know there are forces behind Obama that would force him to escalate.

Freaking geo-political gamesmanship which could turn into brinkmanship over a country that we have no interest in.

WisRich on August 28, 2013 at 3:01 PM

He will do all he can while hiding behind Syrian identities. I assume that AA batteries are supervised by Russians, and I wouldn’t be surprised to see anti-ship missile batteries fully manned by Russians. The Syrians also have a decent little navy with missile boats.

More valuable than that would be satellite and long-range radar data that the Russians could pass to Syria without blowback.

Does Syria have an AWACS capability to see incoming cruise missiles?

slickwillie2001 on August 28, 2013 at 3:21 PM

Once again Washington has preempted any hope of peaceful settlement. By announcing the forthcoming attack, the US destroyed any incentive for the “rebels” to participate in the peace talks with the Syrian government. On the verge of these talks taking place, the “rebels” now have no incentive to participate as the West’s military is coming to their aid.

The US government has not explained why it matters whether people in the wars initiated by the West are killed by explosives made of depleted uranium or with chemical agents or any other weapon. It was obvious from the beginning that Obama was setting up the Syrian government for attack. Obama demonized chemical weapons–but not nuclear “bunker busters” that the US might use on Iran. Then Obama drew a red line, saying that the use of chemical weapons by the Syrians was such a great crime that the West would be obliged to attack Syria.

This police state is now going to commit yet another Nazi-style war crime of unprovoked aggression. At Nuremberg the Nazis were sentenced to death for precisely the identical actions being committed by Obama. The West is banking on might, not right, to keep it out of the criminal dock.

roflmmfao

donabernathy on August 28, 2013 at 3:21 PM

When he gives the order will he have his bike helmet on?

docflash on August 28, 2013 at 2:42 PM

Yes he will.

But commander Obama still hasn’t decided if he will give the order to attack on The Tonight Show with Jay Leno or on The Late Show With David Letterman. The White House is currently conducting focus groups to decide which television show will give Obama the best ratings for the attack command.

Basil Fawlty on August 28, 2013 at 3:23 PM

He don’t need no stinking Congress.

/Get with the program already, will ya?

Key West Reader on August 28, 2013 at 4:22 PM

Good point. Isn’t the President scheduled to be in Russia in the near future ?

Already was a problem due to Snowden. An attack on Syria would make such a visit a tad uncomfortable.

Jabberwock on August 28, 2013 at 2:59 PM

Hah. I’d be surprised if they don’t rescind the invitation. And, if they cannot or will not, perhaps he can sit in the corner, play some cards and eat some goldfish crackers and have some apple juice.

That’s pretty much his role in the world as we stand here today, August 28, 2013 – 50 years after MLK’s dream… we have… Obama – he killed the dream.

/probably with one of his play toy drones.

What a shame.

Key West Reader on August 28, 2013 at 4:25 PM

Just amazing how our media gives this Democrat administration a pass on everything.

MN J on August 28, 2013 at 4:35 PM

Obama still hasn’t decided if he will give the order to attack on The Tonight Show with Jay Leno or on The Late Show With David Letterman. The White House is currently conducting focus groups to decide which television show will give Obama the best ratings for the attack command.

Basil Fawlty on August 28, 2013 at 3:23 PM

Oprah would be more appropriate.

“St. Skittles of Sanford, pray for us racist motherflukers. Allahu akbar!”

spiritof61 on August 28, 2013 at 4:50 PM

A long ago military ‘gedanken’ experiment or war-game exercise was performed. Two combat commands were established and they went at it ‘tooth & nail’. One was the Blue Force that followed American tactics and weapons capabilities the Red Force followed the Warsaw Pact weapons and used tactic’s developed by LTG Ripper (USMC) and his team. After a few days the Team Ripper had totally kicked the American ass. The game was paused & restructured so as to not make the Pentagon team look too bad and restarted. Didn’t matter, Team Ripper continued to win and the game was stopped and an abbreviated report was issued.
Using totally unconventional methods Team Ripper had won and won big.
He used tactics like ‘suicide bombers’, explosive laden dinghies, Kamikaze aircraft and the like.
Gen. Ripper and his lads & lassies did this between the time frame of the Marine barracks bombing (Beirut) and the USS Cole (Yemen).
I have no doubt that neither King Putt or any of his handlers have ever heard of this event.
And if they did, they have no clue as to how to interpret the lessons.
One of the rules of Warfare:
In any conflict … your enemy gets a vote in the outcome.

Missilengr on August 28, 2013 at 5:16 PM

Old and Busted: Cowboy Diplomacy
New Hotness: Cowboy Rodeo Clown Diplomacy

Good Lt on August 28, 2013 at 2:05 PM

FIFY

CitizenEgg on August 28, 2013 at 5:24 PM

Missilengr on August 28, 2013 at 5:16 PM

Turned a few heads back then, and p.o.’d a lot of brass, too, at the time.

Something similar happend in the 70′s, a aREFORGER, when the 101st deployed to Germany and was eaten up in the first 24 hours of play.

General Wickham 101st commander, was angry that the OPFOR did not play by the rules. Our division commander thought we had performed spectacularly. Said when the Russians come pouring across the Fulda Gap, all rules are meaningless…fight to stall them, kill as many as we can, give time for reinforcements to try to save what is left of us….but more important stop the Russians dead cold in their tracks.

Out in Korea, about the same time, late 60′s if I recall, General Bonesteel caused a good number of the brass to wince, when he essentially concluded that stopping the Norks would mean a slow retreat to Pusan, and taking heavy, major, losses along the way, or, much better, immediately counterattacking north…full throttle…and over a week or two, the losses would be the same, casualties and equipment and combat capability…but…we’d have gained a lot of ground and would have owned most of the North by the time reinforcements started landing at Teagu and Osan and Kimpo.

In warfare, your intel and ops guys need to think like the enemy at all times…the better to best them at their own game.

coldwarrior on August 28, 2013 at 10:04 PM

why only 81 members asking for this? It’s supposed to be a constitutional requirement.

Boehner missing-in-action again.

virgo on August 28, 2013 at 10:28 PM

I’m less worried about what Assad will do than whether Russia decides to intervene directly on Assad’s behalf with their own men, air force, etc. Obama’s weakness is so provocative that they might feel bold enough to do it, and they might even be able to get away with it if they do it.

Doomberg on August 28, 2013 at 2:59 PM

Would Russia even need to go that far? The Russians know what kind of targets the US will go after in Syria. What if they landed some of their cargo planes at the Syrian air bases, and some medical vehicles at the chemical weapons sites? Does Obama have the stones to carry out a strike, if that means the possibility of attacking Russian military assets?

HarryBackside on August 28, 2013 at 11:03 PM

A growing bipartisan coalition in Congress is coming together to “strongly urge” President Obama “to consult and receive authorization from Congress before ordering the use of U.S. military force in Syria.”

NOW they’re upset about being bypassed???

Tough sh!t. You should have held his feet to the fire on Libya. You didn’t. You’re mostly lawyers, know what we call this?

Precedent.

You no longer get a say in this because you refused to enforce this provision of the Constitution last time it came up. You bent over last time, you can bend over this time.

runawayyyy on August 29, 2013 at 12:35 PM