So, we’re going to topple the Syrian government.

By: Moe Lane (Diary) | July 22nd, 2012 at 08:00 PM |

RESIZE: AAA

At least, according to the New York Times: “The Obama administration has for now abandoned efforts for a diplomatic settlement to the conflict in Syria, and instead it is increasing aid to the rebels and redoubling efforts to rally a coalition of like-minded countries to forcibly bring down the government of President Bashar al-Assad, American officials say.” Which is all very… nice. The Assad regime is, of course, a second-generation fascist regime that routinely brutalizes its own population and funds international terrorism on a regular basis. It’s even been credibly argued that the Syrian regime has existing stockpiles of chemical and/or biological weapons – you know: WMDs. Eliminating another Baathist regime from the board would be, if you’ll forgive the phrase, a mitzvah.

What I want to know is this: again, precisely who or what authorizes the executive branch to commit acts of war on other countries without the input of the legislative branch? – Because while the NYT article talks about how the administration is meeting with our allies’ various civilian defense apparatuses (one hopes that we’re at least going to get paid this time), and holding regular planning sessions in house on how to deal with Syria, and coordinating with the Syrian opposition itself… nowhere in this article is there any indication whatsoever that the President is meeting or planning or coordinating with, well, Congress. Congress, in fact, seems to be entirely out of the loop on this one. And it’s going to be a race – just like it was with our Libyan adventure – to see who will be more hypocritically silent on this: Congressional Democrats, or the antiwar Left.

Moe Lane (crosspost)

PS: Let me just head this one off at the pass: George W. Bush received full Congressional authorization for military action against both the Afghan and Iraqi regimes, before actual hostilities commenced (and well before, in the case of Iraq). This basic respect for separation of powers, and the realization for the need for proper oversight, is in marked contrast to Barack Obama’s unilateral initiation of hostilities against Libya, which was not authorized by Congress. It was also a full reversal of Candidate Obama’s position on how to start a shooting war, but if you’re not already gloomily aware that Barack Obama lies when it suits him then there’s not much I can do for you.

So. We are not having the conversation about whether the War Powers Act is or is not constitutional (it’s probably not); for that matter, we are not having the conversation about whether Muammar Qaddafi deserved to get shot in the head and then have his corpse stuffed in a freezer for a couple of days until everybody who wanted a look could get one (he did). No, what we are doing is having the conversation of exactly how many shooting wars we must enter into before Barack Obama’s own political party gets around to telling him that they will not support any more unsupervised shouldering of the White Man’s Burden.

Although I expect that they’ll just run the clock out on that one.

Tags: Barack Obama, syria

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES | LOGIN TO COMMENT | REGISTER TODAY

From ME to You

so why should he have any regard for laws passed by Congress?
JDFlanagan

To the Syrian Christian population. Assad is a murderous bastard. So are a significant number of those trying to overthrow him. While western involvement in his overthrow might be a foregone conclusion, has anyone given any thought to where one might put about a million Christian refugees (assuming most of them survive the arrival of Hezbollah)?
http://www4.webng.com/rickbull/lostlucky/ rickbull

It does not matter how many thousands or millions die, so long as there are no U.S. soldiers involved (directly) with the conflict–that is, unless the weapons are being sold to an oil-rich country (at war with another oil-rich country) in order to pay for aid to a rebel group in a poor country (can you say Iran-Contra? Nice try). In that case, the feces hit the oscillating wind machine–in this one . . . not so much.

The truly anti-war left will raise holy hades, but the hypocritical left-wing media will ignore them, because it doesn’t fit their agenda of supporting dear leader.
Tbone

Apparently.
David123

when a state sponsor of terror and Al Qaida start shooting at each other?
tnfriendofcoal101368

will almost certainly be headed by Muslim Brotherhood….
checkmate2012

Congress, the Cindy Sheehans and the press would be vocal and outraged. Of course Bush got Congressional approval and they were still outraged.

Where is the Left when you need them??? Taking cover for King O of course like you said.
acat

Nice burdensome addition to a State Obama hates…

Mew
civil truth

Russia sees the danger if the rebels prevail in terms of emboldening Islamic radicals, who pose a continuing threat to their territorial integrity. So they have taken a stand to defend Assad.

As for us, we could take a similar view.

Or we could decide that we would rather throw our lot with the rebel forces and hope to maneuver behind the scenes so that the radicals don’t control the new government that emerges.

Or we could decide to stay out and advocate for the rights of minorities in the resultant Syria.

But what is happening now is that we’re sending mixed messages, indicating either indecisiveness/not knowing our interests or passivity/bending to the prevailing wind.- not willing to defend our interests.

And that’s the worse message to send, because then we lose in all scenarios.
Racist

Didn’t an obama official state during the Libya fiasco, that they may consult Congress or notify Congress in future military operations, but that Obama had declered the President to have authority to authorize contingency operations without the approval of the pesky obstructionists…
rbdwiggins

both chemical and biological, and the remnants of Saddam’s nuclear weapon program.
Jack_Savage

Oh – the ones that are being moved around Syria:

“The Obama administration has begun to hold classified briefings about the new intelligence. U.S. officials are particularly worried about Syria’s stocks of sarin gas, the deadly and versatile nerve agent. The officials wouldn’t say where weapons have been moved.

Whatever the motivation, the evidence that the chemical weapons are coming into play could escalate the conflict in Syria, some fear. ‘This could set the precedent of WMD [weapons of mass destruction] being used under our watch,’ one U.S. official said. ‘This is incredibly dangerous to our national security.’”

Gosh, I hope they don’t use this huge lie as a pretext for an unjust military intervention in the Middle East, ya know.
checkmate2012

What state are you in again??? I pick yours, tag you’re it
checkmate2012

for Libya.

Does anyone know how our 100 troops are doing in S. Sudan via Uganda that he sent in unilaterally last Oct? Didn’t think so as there is NO coverage then or now. I was shocked at his move and lack of coverage. Here again he did it by letter:

“In a letter to Congress, Obama said the troops will act as advisers in efforts to hunt down rebel leader Joseph Kony but will not engage in combat except in self-defense.

The White House said the first troops arrived in Uganda on Wednesday. Ultimately, they’ll also deploy in South Sudan, the Central African Republic and the Democratic Republic of the Congo.”

From10/14/11, http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-250_162-20120685.html
acat

No way the Obama administration is sending ‘em here .. unless they come with very generous Federally funded benefits, that is….

Mew
tnfriendofcoal101368

Home of Axelrod, Emanuel and Obama – he’s been punished enough.
Jack_Savage

“We don’t have a plan, we just know we don’t like the current situation.”
checkmate2012

acat to TX…I’m sure you too to TN tnfriend!
rbdwiggins

That’s not possible, because President Obama is a Democrat.

An “unjust military intervention” is only possible if it’s conducted by a Republican administration…
septembergurl

which would be authorizing the funds for such an adventure. So, we could expect the kind of shenanigans that we saw in the House in 2006-7 regarding the Surge in Iraq, where Dem attempts to defund the Surge were beaten back? Apparently not.

Likewise I could be wrong but I believe Republican hawks in the Senate, led by McCain, are the most vocal demanding US involvement in Syria. This pattern of Republicans supporting a Democrap President in an ill-conceived military effort occurred in 1965-66 when Republicans supported johnson’s Americanization of the war in Vietnam.. We should have hearings and perhaps a debate, as we had in both the Gulf War and the Afghan-Iraq Wars, with a resolution, in the Senate, but we won’t have them . But it’s not just hypocritical Democraps to blame. As with Obama’s pointless escalation in Afghanistan, Republican hawks are so eager to have involvement that they will be obama’s biggest supporters.

Well, maybe we will get some clarity from Romney…yeah, no.
acat

Some of my potential co-workers took me to lunch. 94 degrees outside, and they were talking about how nice and cool it was.

Take a look at my picture and see if you can figure out why I’m not a Texas cat, eh?

Mew
Ausonius

…will not ship them back to Iraq?

I do wonder about that!

Or maybe the Russians will load them up, when their fleet arrives.
rbdwiggins

Republicans only control 1/2 of the 112^th Congress.
checkmate2012

hey it’s only 93 now in Dallas after sundown. Night and day is like black and white down here and moon time is a blessing.
Uma Richie

Also…Just to add because it has been annoying me for weeks…Every time I hear John McCain talking about the thousands of dead Syrians, I want to slap him upside the head. His civility in the 2008 campaign is partially responsible for this mess.
http://www4.webng.com/rickbull/lostlucky/ rickbull

That woman has sullied the memory of her heroic son to the point that her name is an abomination to any true conservative.

Were it within my power, I would remove her name from Casey Sheehan’s birth certificate and assign him the mother that he truly deserves: a patriotic woman who would be proud of her son’s noble sacrifice for his country.

God rest his soul, I do hope that Casey is in a place beyond caring for what his mother has done in his name.
acat

Self-portrait.

Mew
septembergurl

roles for Republicans in the House, which we control, and the Senate, which we don’t.

My point was, there will be no opposition from republicans in either House or Senate, and that should be our concern, since we can’t influence the way Democraps act or vote. Care to address that, or are you contented with cheap shots?
checkmate2012

especially since it’s O’s favorite strawman enemy…”can’t get it passed Congress”, etc. I’m so sick of hearing that from O and the press when it’s Reid the Reject that is holding Congress back from passing anything worthwhile.

sep’tgirl is right on the purse strings, but the Left non-hawks are strangely silent on O’s oversees contingencies.
checkmate2012

hypocrisy of the Left. Why are they silent when O is doing more damage in secret and bending laws into pretzels?

I don’t agree with them but find it very telling that they’re now silent on their previous hot button issues, like war and privacy (can we say drones?)
checkmate2012

please AZ voters.

And I’d add that O can’t get Russia to succomb to his UN Council resolution on Syria or his charming personality and then wants to invite them into the tent, after Assad scrams. Talk about mixed signals.
http://www4.webng.com/rickbull/lostlucky/ rickbull

They accuse Bush and the Republicans of driving the car into the ditch, but our party and movement are the only ones with a clear pathway. The libs are the ones that are all over the road when it comes to their agenda. That’s why they are incapable of hypocrisy: they can always find a contingent within their ranks for which anything is an acceptable agenda, and personal values are something that they can change like socks or briefs.
rbdwiggins

did you make such a distinction.

“Last I heard, Republicans control congress”

Also: Was your reasoning behind the label “ill-conceived military effort” purely political, or was it based on the national security interests of the United States?

No need to answer that question, it was purely rhetorical…

Furthermore, any resolution would necessarily be concurrent.

Query: Don’t you think our “concern” should be… Whether or not Hezbollah has access to Syria’s chemical weapons?
rbdwiggins

It would have been akin to political suicide.

They just used “Bush Lied” and other Known Facts™ to hold hostage funding for Iraq/Afghanistan unless President Bush agreed to increase deficit spending on domestic programs that satisfied the Democrats’ special interests.
Xasteius

People and lives mean nothing; they are just tools to keep him in power.
http://Blackberrybear.etsy.com knitwit

and his ability to decimate JD Hayworth with the totally complicit willing assistance of the Republican establishment in Arizona using scorched earth campaigning, and his considerable warchest accumulated during his lame Presidential run, then turning around and tacking back way left of center as progressives usually do once “they win”. McLame is still majorly PO’d that anyone DARED to challenge his hallowed RIGHT to the Senator’s office from Arizona, and sticks it to us whenever he can from Washington! Now he is backing Jeff Flake for John Kyl’s seat–what does that tell you about Jeff Flake?–against a neophyte businessman and contributor to Arizona’s success. Flake ran on term limits against incumbent legislators, and then reneged on his touted 3 terms and out promise, stating “I lied. What can I say?” when one of his constituents challenged him on it at a meet and greet. Do we really need to discuss what re-electing McLame has cost the entire country this time around?

A Progressive on the right is just as stinky as one on the left….just undermines Conservatives from inside and underneath.
http://Blackberrybear.etsy.com knitwit

nt
http://Blackberrybear.etsy.com knitwit

at dessert time: one gets to cut the portions, and the other gets to choose, only in reverse–the Dem’s want to cut and choose, and hold reasonable citizens hostage until they get to do both…..then usually grab the whole cake and run!
checkmate2012

tough times. Yes I like term limits by voters and members, but right now I like his experience.

I don’t know who is challenging Flake, sorry but if he/she can get Cruz like exposure, perhaps there’s a chance? McLame- love it!
rbdwiggins

But I’m disappointed that President Bush didn’t call their bluff and tell Harry and Nancy to go pound sand.
checkmate2012

n/t
septembergurl

“last I heard, Republicans control Congress which would be authorizing the funds for such an adventure.”

The antecendent of “which….adventure” is “Congress”, defined as the body which authorizes funds, ie, the House. That would be a distinction between the House and the Senate, which does not authorize funds.

So yes, I did make that distinction.

My larger point is that the House and Senate have responsibilities and powers to check the President in his exercise of CIC powers. The House can use the funding power, the senate can use treaty, war powers, etc. That is not happening now, and the reason is that, as Moe says, the Democraps, whatever their reservations and anti-war beliefs, etc are not going to oppose Obama. That leaves it up to Republicans, and that’s my point.

Republicans did nothing when Obama put 30,000 troops in Afghanistan in a totally pointless and disastrous escalation. Not a hearing, not a debate, not a resolution, not a peep. Likewise our adventure in Libya to preserve European access to Libyan oil. Again, not a peep. Now it’s Syria.

The pattern repeats itself. A Republican President, be it Nixon or Reagan or Bush, will be hemmed in by the legislature every step of the way. A Democrap President will be supported by Democraps and by Republicans who generally support military action. The Democraps couch their support in humanitarian terms, Republicans in the national interest (as you do).

I suppose I need to point out that i am far from an isolationist, I supported the Gulf War, the (original) Afghan war and the Iraq war and posted here very frequently during the second Bush administration, when many here wanted to surrender our gains in both those conflicts.

Syria’s chemical weapons are a concern but not a casus belli. There is a civil war in Syria. Why is this our business?
septembergurl

I did not say “defund the Iraq war”. I said “Defund the Surge” (which was an escalation that took place in 2007-8 and effectively ended the insurgency, and the war).

You have repeatedly misquoted me. Please read again what I said. If you can find where I said “Defund the iraq and Afghanistan war” show it to me. Otherwise retract the above.
Joliphant

when he is a democrat apparently.
Dave_A

It just doesn’t authorize the Executive to engage in the diplomatic formality known as a ‘declaration of war’.

The Commander in Chief power is sufficient to commit acts of war, to send troops into combat, and so on – and it is NOT conditioned on the existence of a ‘declaration of war’.

In fact, the ONLY provision in the entire Constitution that could reasonably be interpreted as ‘conditioned on a declaration of war’ is the 3rd Amendment – eg, if Congress declares war, then troops may be quartered in civilian homes.

The Congressional power to ‘declare war’ should rightly be viewed in the same light as the power to ‘grant letters of marque and reprisal’ – namely as powers that were relevant in the past, but which have been rendered obselete by changes in international custom (privateering is now seen as common piracy, and no one declares war anymore – you just start shooting).

Congress has the power to end a military operation by refusing to fund it – but that is a politically risky move that even the most partisan Congress (eg, the 06 Democratic one) will not attempt.

If the Founders had intended for all wars to be declared, they would have conditioned the power of Commander in Chief upon the existence of a declared state of war.

That they did not, allows for military operations without express Congressional consent, so long as Congress funds said operations.
madamdeb

Were you this concerned about Bush and Iraq or Afghanistan? Especially Iraq.

I mean, what’s the difference between lying to get Congress to agree with you and simply acting on your own?
celador2

The way liberals , Democrats and Sec Leon Panetta describe their oppostion to Iraq was that Bush acted without UN authority. Panetta repeated that Libya intervention was due to UN approval and Obama did not need Congress.

The double standard again we see with Syria! Obama now will go outside the UN whose authority he cited as legitimate and by pass Congress one more time.
And the anti war movement so tied to UN approval before an action sit silent? Oh, they will start the cheering soon if the last unauthorized Democrat presidential war is an example.

After Clinton and NATO intervened in Kosovo Civil war 1998 without Security Council approval, the UN did finally approve afterwards.All was well in anti war circles, sort of !

Having a Democrat in White House changes media and anti war reaction to US intervention with or without UN approval.
That that Democrat is lawless seems not to matter at all.
michaelbowler

There will NOT be a single disparaging word, not from the cheerleading press, not from the democrats in congress, not from anti-war left…

It’s really quite simple, not one of these groups objects to anything if it means undermining the most important thing…the transformation to a socialist state. If Obama were to be called on the carpet for his actions by these groups it would certainly affect his re-election chances in a most negative way. The transformation is far more important than a few lives or a foreign policy blunder…or both.

We have seen in Fast and Furious a clear disregard for human life in the pursuit of a political goal. There is no reason to believe the Syrian situation will result in a sudden concern for human life, the rule of law or national security…the transformation must continue…
rbdwiggins

The expanded statement:

?last I heard, Republicans control Congress which would be authorizing the funds for such an adventure.?

Is structurally no different than:

?Last I heard, Republicans control congress?

The error: “Republicans control Congress”… Is common in both instances.

This statement just compounds the error:

“That would be a distinction between the House and the Senate, which does not authorize funds</em."

Spending bills must originate in the House. Authorization is required by both the House and Senate, ie, Congress.

"There is a civil war in Syria. Why is this our business?”

It’s not any of our business… If your reasoning/motivation is purely political.
rbdwiggins

“You have repeatedly misquoted me.”

That just isn’t so.

My statement:

“The Dems never intended to defund the Iraq war. It would have been akin to political suicide.”

Is a stand-alone statement directed to checkmate2012. It is also a statement of fact.

If I had attributed the statement to anyone other than myself, quotation marks would have been included.

A retraction will not be forthcoming…
Bill S

“without the input of the legislative branch”

…do you not understand? Oh, wait, I’m asking a logical question to a left-wing dumbass. Forget it, then.
commonsenseobserver

As Obama’s actions now show. Just a possibility, of course. A pure conjecture based on the facts.
http://moelane.com/ Moe Lane

It’s not my fault that you picked the wrong moral side in Iraq. It’s also not my fault that your particular man-god turned out to have a foreign policy just like Bush’s, only without basic competence or a respect for law… oh, what’s the point? You won’t read this, either.

Seriously, you’d think that therapy would be a growth industry today, on the Left.

Moe Lane

PS: Shoo. Grownups talking.
funwithknives

Socialist, Communist, or the variations of the same, one thing always proceeds, and never, ever ceases:

“The Dialectic” must always advance. History documents it, the trail of bodies verifies this truth, and the misery they bring is everywhere to be witnessed.

…but you have to WANT to see it…………..
gmhunt

The President said, “I will act when Congress want”.he will go to war with an “Executive Order” just like he does everything else and Congress will DO NOTHING…….
2warabnvet

safe bet that, if the rebels are Muslim fundamentalists, Obama will support them.
spandrel

and I can’t find the part where it indicates any plans for direct US military involvement, merely support for parties opposed to the Assad regime.

?You?ll notice in the last couple of months, the opposition has been strengthened,? a senior Obama administration official said Friday. ?Now we?re ready to accelerate that.? The official said that the hope was that support for the Syrian opposition from the United States, Arab governments and Turkey would tip the balance in the conflict.

Not sure, but I don’t think POTUS needs Congressional approval to support the rebels. I do recall once Congress banned an administration from supporting rebels (in Nicarauga), but the administration (Reagan) ignored the ban.
inletghost

Long time reader but a first time poster. Thanks for having such a great site!!

Does anyone know if this question has even been before the Supreme Court and, if so, what was the ruling?
funwithknives

Sunni ?
Wahabi ?
Christian?
Islamic Fundamentalists looking for a New Caliphate?

Handing out arms to people you don’t know and cannot possibly fathom the motives of, is for Naifs , Morons……(wait a minute.)
{Time out for reflection…..}

{Later on…}
Fast and Furious , was just prac-tizin’. They’re ‘experienced’ in this venue, and think they got it down to a science. So, it’s O K then.
Barry knows what’s goin’ on,… right?
He’s Smart,… just ‘axe’ him…
spandrel

that we should stay the heck out of that kind of stuff, it never works out the way one intends. That Taliban come to mind, especially when considering efforts to topple Russian client dictators. It’s too soon to say how Libya will turn out, but I was a vocal opponent of our involvement there as well.

But the discussion is about whether Congressional approval is needed, and I only meant to respectfully disagree.
Dave_A

1) On a strategic level, if we don’t, Al Queda will. And if they do, that will rebuild their reputation with the Arab world (a reputation destroyed by AQ killing Arabs in Iraq) & give them a new lease on life.

2) The Muslim Brotherhood may not be the most friendly of organizations, but they are a damn slight better than the Iranian regime (and happen to hate Iran almost as much as they hate Israel)…

Even the worst-case scenario, a Sunni-Islamist Syria, would be an improvement over the status-quo of Syria as Iran’s major regional ally.

The damage done to Iran would be far more significant than any potential harm from toppling Assad.

3) While some will worry about Israel, Israel is more than capable of dealing with Syria, if the new regime is hostile – especially after the damage the current conflict is doing to the Syrian military….
Dave_A

The most likely ‘flashpoint’ would be the War Powers Act – an act of Congress limiting the President’s power to unilaterally engage in war, that is widely believed to be unconstitutional… It places a 90 day limit on military operations not authorized by Congress, requiring an AUMF type resolution (but STILL not a declaration of war) to fight….

However, no Administration has ever sued to have it struck down (for fear it might be upheld) and no Congress has ever sued to enforce it (for fear it might NOT be upheld)…

The last time the issue almost came up, was under the Bush Administration – however they were able to get Congress to authorize everything they did and thus didn’t NEED to challenge the WPA in court….
michaelbowler

Yup, I saw it.

I’ve lived around the world, I knew who Obama was the moment I heard his rhetoric.
uselogic

That one drowned the keyboard in Diet Coke. Thanks, Moe.
Cornholio

We have enough real problems to address without the unnecessary burden of nation building in Syria.

RS

FRONT PAGE CONTRIBUTOR

So, we’re going to topple the Syrian government.

COMMENTS

ALL

COMMENTS

POPULAR

#RSRH

PICK YOUR STATE & GET LOCAL