Skip to main content

View Diary: So, only in the UK they have democracy?- Update: Germany says no to Syria attack (60 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  We fought the Revolution against the British (12+ / 0-)

    so we could establish a land of democracy, only to see things turn full circle, with the UK Prime Minister abiding by Parliament's decision and the US President threatening to go ahead without Congressional approval simply because he thinks it is the right thing to do. The heck with the provisions of the US Constitution.

    Where once we could pride ourselves on lending some credence to that quaint old document that many died for over the last 200+ years, we now have a nation on the verge of launching an attack on another nation, which is not threatening the USA, pretty much because we can.

    Congress be damned. "Go it alone," indeed. We don't even have the wallpapering claim to a UN Resolution to lend a temporary veneer of legality to the looming attack.

    "The law is meant to be my servant and not my master, still less my torturer and my murderer." -- James Baldwin. July 11, 1966.

    by YucatanMan on Thu Aug 29, 2013 at 10:27:01 PM PDT

    •  Could you provide a link to where Obama has (4+ / 0-)

      threatened to go ahead without Congressional approval?  thanks.

      "Don't Bet Against Us" - President Barack Obama

      by MRA NY on Thu Aug 29, 2013 at 10:48:14 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Obama hasn't threatened to go w/o approval but (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Dianna, Blue Wind, Alice Olson, Sandino

        he has also not said he would ask for Congressional approval. Obama's 'kinetic military action' in Syria would involve considerably fewer military assets as well as a much shorter time period than Libya.

        But, if he went it without approval and things went sour requiring an escalation of forces, Obama could end up in deep shit. All it would take is one of Syria's missiles to hit a target in Israel or a US ship and all hell would break loose in the ME.

      •  Well, you can read the White House (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Justanothernyer, JVolvo, Alice Olson

        statement post conference call with Congressional members last night:

        The views of Congress are important to the President’s decision-making process, and we will continue to engage with Members as the President reaches a decision on the appropriate U.S. response to the Syrian government’s violation of international norms against the use of chemical weapons.  
        [bold emphasis mine]

        That paragraph looks pretty clear to me that the President thinks these powers are reserved for himself.

        I'm just Double Tapped the hell out.

        by pajoly on Fri Aug 30, 2013 at 06:01:19 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  They are. These powers have been given the (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          President by a dysfunctional institution that didn't want the responsibility.

          "Because I am a river to my people."

          by lordcopper on Fri Aug 30, 2013 at 06:11:05 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Too true and excellent point n/t (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            I'm just Double Tapped the hell out.

            by pajoly on Fri Aug 30, 2013 at 06:31:54 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  just like Rome (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            But then the Founding Fathers wanted to re-create the Roman Republic - or at least their idealized fantasy version of it; the real thing was pretty cynical - so it makes sense that our Republic would end the same way: sliding into de jure empire as the the practical demands of de facto empire (the Roman Republic ruled vast non-Roman and non-Italian territories) overwhelm the old republican machinery.

            The Roman Senate didn't want its powers back either.

    •  Lord North lost too (0+ / 0-)

      The 18th century British constitution was a bit different to the 21st century one, but Lord North's ministry lived and died because of its support in the House of Commons just as David Cameron's does.

      In the 18th century the King could sustain an unpopular set of minister's for a time but rarely for long when the knights of the shires (MPs for the county constituencies) turned against it. That is what happened, as the American war went from bad to worse (from Westminster's perspective). Eventually King George III had to accept Lord North's resignation.

      There is no man alive who is sufficiently good to rule the life of the man next door to him. Sir Rhys Hopkin Morris, M.P.

      by Gary J on Fri Aug 30, 2013 at 01:00:20 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (125)
  • Community (60)
  • Media (31)
  • Elections (31)
  • Trans-Pacific Partnership (30)
  • 2016 (29)
  • Environment (27)
  • Law (27)
  • Barack Obama (24)
  • Culture (23)
  • Civil Rights (23)
  • Hillary Clinton (23)
  • Republicans (22)
  • Science (21)
  • Climate Change (21)
  • Labor (19)
  • Economy (19)
  • Jeb Bush (18)
  • Josh Duggar (18)
  • Bernie Sanders (17)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site