Skip to main content

On Sunday, Republican Sen. Bob Corker and Rep. Eliot Engel - a Democrat who voted for the Iraq war - told Fox News that President Obama should strike Syria first and get Congressional approval afterwards.

That's not how the U.S. Constitution says it should go. That's not how the War Powers Resolution (which, despite the name "resolution," is binding U.S. law) says it should go. The Constitution and the War Powers Resolution say that absent an attack on the United States, Congress must approve military action before it takes place. There is a common misconception about the War Powers Resolution that it allows the President can do whatever he or she wants for 60 days. This confuses one provision of the War Powers Resolution with the whole. In section 2c, the War Powers Resolution affirms that:

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.

There's another common misconception that because Presidents have claimed that the War Powers Resolution is unconstitutional, it can be ignored. First, the President doesn't get to declare things unconstitutional on his or her own say-so - the President is entitled to his or her opinion, but that's all it is, an opinion. Second, while the constitutionality of some provisions of the War Powers Resolution has been disputed, the constitutionality of section 2c has never been in serious dispute. If other parts of the War Powers Resolution were to fall to a constitutional challenge - which they haven't - section 2c would still be good law.

According to a recent Reuters/Ipsos poll, 60 percent of Americans surveyed said the U.S. should not intervene in Syria's sectarian civil war, while just 9 percent thought President Obama should intervene. Even if Assad's forces used chemical weapons to attack civilians - at this point, an allegation which has not been proved, and an allegation that has a track record of being made without being borne out - only 25 percent of Americans would support U.S. intervention, while 46 percent would oppose it.

On July 24, the House approved an amendment by voice vote that would prohibit funding of any military action that violates the War Powers Resolution.

If President Obama can get us into war in Syria without prior Congressional approval, it will set a terrible precedent: a future president could get us more easily into war in Iran without prior Congressional approval.

Tell President Obama and Congress: there must be no U.S. military action in Syria without Congressional debate and authorization.

Congress is out of session right now. But there is no emergency that requires immediate, unconstitutional, illegal action. If there were an emergency that required immediate action, Congress could be called back into session. If there's no emergency that requires immediate action, then action can wait until Congress reconvenes.

Syria's sectarian civil war has been going on for years. If President Obama wanted to intervene militarily, he's had ample opportunities to put the proposition to Congressional debate and vote.

It is perhaps not a coincidence that when President Obama intervened militarily in Libya - also without Congressional authorization - Congress was out of session.

There is no provision in the Constitution or the War Powers Resolution for a "recess war." If the precedent is set that the President can do whatever he or she wants so long as Congress is out of session, the war powers provisions of the Constitution and the War Powers Resolution will be substantially undermined. And the prospect of war with Iran will get much closer, because a key speed bump on the road to war will be removed.

If Congress doesn't count, then the American people don't count. It's no accident that the permanent war party wants the President to go around Congress when the majority of Americans are strongly opposed to a new war. If Congress and the American people can be evaded in this case, it's a body blow to the principle that U.S. foreign policy should be subordinate to democracy and the rule of law.

It should not go unnoted that a U.S. military strike on Syria under present circumstances would be a grave breach of the U.N. Charter, because Syria has not attacked the United States and the U.N. Security Council has not approved military action in Syria.

Of course, there is a widespread belief in Washington and the country at large that the U.N. Charter and international law generally don't apply to the United States: "that's not for us to follow, that's for the little people to follow."

But even if this is your view - that the U.N. Charter doesn't apply to the United States - note that it is generally accepted in Washington that the fact that the U.S. would be in breach of the U.N. Charter if it strikes Syria without being attacked and without Security Council authorization has significant implications for whether U.S. military action is legal under the Constitution and the War Powers Resolution.

In past cases where an Administration has deployed force without Congressional authorization, and which supporters of military action without Congressional authorization cite as precedents - Kosovo and Libya - the Administration cited international action as justification: NATO action in the former case, UN action in the latter case.

Now, in fact, there's nothing in the Constitution or U.S. law that says that the Administration can act without Congressional approval because there's a UN resolution or a NATO agreement. But because Administrations have argued in the past that a UN resolution or NATO action can help justify U.S. military action in the absence of Congressional authorization, it matters that there is no UN resolution and no NATO action - the Administration's legal case for unilateral action is even weaker than in the Kosovo case or the Libya case.

Unfortunately, the Constitution and the War Powers Resolution are not self-enforcing when it comes to protecting Congressional war powers, democracy, and the rule of law. The enforcement is political. The Constitution and the War Powers Resolution are enforced when Members of Congress insist that they be enforced, and Members of Congress insist that the Constitution and the War Powers Resolution be enforced when they hear from the public that they want the Constitution and the War Powers Resolution to be enforced.

That's why it's important for the public to speak up. Tell President Obama and Congress to comply with the Constitution and the War Powers Resolution: no military intervention in Syria without prior Congressional approval.

1:50 PM PT: Peace Action just sent out an alert asking people to call the White House comment line at 202-456-1111 and say:
"I oppose military intervention and military support in Syria.  I support massive efforts for a political solution and continued humanitarian aid."

10:05 PM PT: 10,000 people have signed our petition at MoveOn:
President Obama: Don't Strike Syria Without Congressional Approval
http://petitions.moveon.org/...

Poll

The powers of POTUS to introduce Armed Forces into hostilities are exercised only pursuant to declaration of war, specific statutory authorization, or national emergency created by attack upon the US, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.

91%233 votes
7%20 votes

| 254 votes | Vote | Results

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Total insanity (5+ / 0-)

    Attacking Syria would be total insanity.   It would inflamme big time the middle east and could lead to a generalized war in the region.   And if Russia decides to react, we may start talking about WWIII.  

  •  One of the chief reasons (4+ / 0-)

    if he attacks Syria without congressional approval, I guarantee every single Republican in the House and Senate will howl at the top of their lungs about unprecedented abuse of power and tyranny and impeachment and OMG OMG OMG.

    They do that anyway, but it helps to have reality on our side.

    I don't think the US should attack Syria at all, certainly not until we have more conclusive evidence of wrongdoing and who the perpetrators were.

    We do not forgive. We do not forget. The whole world is watching.

    by Tracker on Mon Aug 26, 2013 at 09:41:23 AM PDT

  •  Doesn't anybody else think that a country that (11+ / 0-)

    manufactures, and stockpiles, chemical weapons for it's own use, and for the occasional sale to others, really has no business in attacking another nation for using them?  Hypocrisy to the max.

    Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

    by Bisbonian on Mon Aug 26, 2013 at 09:44:04 AM PDT

    •  Yep (8+ / 0-)

      and the fact that the US has littered Iraq with DU bombs and used willey pete during the attack on Fallujah.
      But do as we say, not as we do is the US motto.

      Passing a law that the Constitution doesn't allow does not negate the Constitution, it negates the law that was passed. Secret courts can't make up secret laws. SORRY FOR THE TYPOS :)

      by snoopydawg on Mon Aug 26, 2013 at 10:20:14 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Bisb - I don't think we have sold any chemical (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      LakeSuperior, elmo, Chrisfs

      weapons to anyone in decades. The challenge now is how to safely dispose of our stockpiles.

      To answer your question, no I don't think the fact that we have a stockpile of these weapons means we can't allow their use against civilians by other countries.

      "let's talk about that"

      by VClib on Mon Aug 26, 2013 at 11:29:40 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  "We don't do *that* anymore is a pathetic response (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        dewley notid, Sunspots, Lepanto

        from a citizen of a nation which still sells cluster bombs. Bisbonian was referencing our hypocrisy as a nation, and you neatly proved his/her point. Thank you for playing today's version of the Narrow Technicality Excuse Game.

        Enough fossil fuel remains on Earth to warm it 6 degrees C by 2100 AD if it is all used. A +6 C planet will only sustain half a billion humans. Human population will rise to 9 billion by 2050. Any questions?

        by davidincleveland on Mon Aug 26, 2013 at 12:13:48 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Do you think the appropriate response (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Chrisfs

          is nothing?

          •  You're apparently trying to start shit with me by (0+ / 0-)

            asking a question that implies the comment you replied to suggests I expressed anything about 'appropriate response'. If you reply to this comment at all, with other than an apology for your failed effort, I'm sending the exchange to admin. This is a promise, not a threat. I will have no more than this to say to you in this thread.

            Enough fossil fuel remains on Earth to warm it 6 degrees C by 2100 AD if it is all used. A +6 C planet will only sustain half a billion humans. Human population will rise to 9 billion by 2050. Any questions?

            by davidincleveland on Mon Aug 26, 2013 at 06:09:41 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  david - when did the topic change to cluster bombs (0+ / 0-)

          I thought we were discussing nerve gas.

          "let's talk about that"

          by VClib on Mon Aug 26, 2013 at 06:47:48 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  The original comment discussed HYPOCRISY, as my (0+ / 0-)

            reply to your reply to that comment expressed explicitly. The fact that you feel the same need to attempt to re-direct my comment that you showed with the original comment demonstrates you "got nothin' else," nor anything substantive.

            Enough fossil fuel remains on Earth to warm it 6 degrees C by 2100 AD if it is all used. A +6 C planet will only sustain half a billion humans. Human population will rise to 9 billion by 2050. Any questions?

            by davidincleveland on Mon Aug 26, 2013 at 06:57:02 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I think it would be hypocritical if the US (0+ / 0-)

              had recently used nerve gas as a weapon. But to the best of my knowledge US troops have never deployed nerve gas against a civilian population or even an armed enemy. So I don't think it is hypocritical to have an inventory of nerve gas that is never used and to also prevent others from using it, particularly against civilians.

              "let's talk about that"

              by VClib on Mon Aug 26, 2013 at 07:06:42 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

  •  This is an interesting topic to be sure, (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    FG, Robert Naiman, VClib, elmo

    since it occurs along the fault lines between congressional and presidential power.  At any rate, I'll toss in an excerpt from the Haiti OLC memo on the chapeau of the WPA:

    Furthermore, the structure of the War Powers Resolution (WPR) recognizes and presupposes the existence of unilateral Presidential authority to deploy armed forces "into hostilities or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances." The WPR requires that, in the absence of a declaration of war, the President must report to Congress within 48 hours of introducing armed forces into such circumstances and must terminate the use of United States armed forces within 60 days (or 90 days, if military necessity requires additional time to effect a withdrawal) unless Congress permits otherwise. This structure makes sense only if the President may introduce troops into hostilities or potential hostilities without prior authorization by the Congress: the WPR regulates such action by the President and seeks to set limits to it.

    To be sure, the WPR declares that it should not be "construed as granting any authority to the President with respect to the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into situations wherein involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances." But just as clearly, the WPR assumes that the President already has such authority, and indeed the WPR states that it is not "intended to alter the constitutional authority of the . . . President." Furthermore, although the WPR announces that, in the absence of specific authorization from Congress, the President may introduce armed forces into hostilities only in "a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces," , even the defenders of the WPR concede that this declaration -- found in the "Purpose and Policy" section of the WPR -- either is incomplete or is not meant to be binding. See, e.g., Cyrus R. Vance, Striking the Balance: Congress and the President Under the War Powers Resolution


    (internal cites omitted)

    http://www.justice.gov/...

  •  We also (7+ / 0-)

    manufacture nuclear weapons, but if Iran used a nuke vs Israel, we should not try to thwart their use because we have nukes?

    Some actions cannot be tolerated.
    The use of chemical weapons is one of those actions.

    There is a huge middle ground between doing nothing and a large scale military operations.

    I do hope that the President seeks congressional and Arab League support in any signal he decides to send to Assad that the use of these weapons is not acceptable.

    Have we screwed up in the past in selling chemical weapons to Saddam? yes.   but that does not mean we now stand aside while the use of chemical weapons on innocent civilians becomes the norm around the globe.

    •  asdf (4+ / 0-)
      Some actions cannot be tolerated.
      The use of chemical weapons is one of those actions.
      Ooooooh, tell that to the Gazans.

      Dogs from the street can have all the desirable qualities that one could want from pet dogs. Most adopted stray dogs are usually humble and exceptionally faithful to their owners as if they are grateful for this kindness. -- H.M. Bhumibol Adulyadej

      by corvo on Mon Aug 26, 2013 at 09:59:49 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  And also tell it to the Fallugians. (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Robert Naiman, Rusty Pipes, Lepanto
        Some actions cannot be tolerated.
         The use of chemical weapons is one of those actions.
        The fact we agreed more than 50 years previously that such usage constituted a war crime didn't stop us from selling chemical weapons to dictators and other allies and it didn't deter us from using them during a war which was, itself, a war crime.

        Enough fossil fuel remains on Earth to warm it 6 degrees C by 2100 AD if it is all used. A +6 C planet will only sustain half a billion humans. Human population will rise to 9 billion by 2050. Any questions?

        by davidincleveland on Mon Aug 26, 2013 at 12:20:37 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  When were the Gazans exposed to sarin gas (0+ / 0-)

        or similar weapons designed to kill on contact?

    •  Oh, and what signal should we send (4+ / 0-)

      to Assad's jihadist enemies?  Looks like they've used chemical weapons.

      Dogs from the street can have all the desirable qualities that one could want from pet dogs. Most adopted stray dogs are usually humble and exceptionally faithful to their owners as if they are grateful for this kindness. -- H.M. Bhumibol Adulyadej

      by corvo on Mon Aug 26, 2013 at 10:00:36 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  re: we also (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Smoh

      I agree with your hypothetical: if Iran were to get nuclear weapons, we would not and should not be indifferent to Iran threatening Israel with nuclear weapons, even though the U.S. has nuclear weapons and even though Israel has nuclear weapons.

      In your hypothetical, the U.S. would have plenty of tools at its disposal that would comply with democracy and the rule of law. In particular, if it appeared necessary to use military force, an authorization of force would pass through Congress like a hot knife through butter.

      I agree that the U.S. should try to stop Syria from using chemical weapons - at this writing, we don't know if Syria has done so. But it should do so while complying with democracy and the rule of law, as in your hypothetical. If the Administration wants to use force, it should go to Congress for authorization.

      •  1000 dead within a few hours (0+ / 0-)

        It looks all but certain that chemical weapons were used
        There are some pretty awful pictures of what it looks like in the area. 1000 people killed in a few hours, reports of foaming at mouth. Pretty scary stuff.
        What to do is another story, I was hoping we would stay out of this, because a full scale invasion would be a long and awful slog but to see people killed in a huge scale in awful as well.

  •  Well, yeah, but I'd say (9+ / 0-)

    "Don't strike Syria despite Congressional approval."

    Dogs from the street can have all the desirable qualities that one could want from pet dogs. Most adopted stray dogs are usually humble and exceptionally faithful to their owners as if they are grateful for this kindness. -- H.M. Bhumibol Adulyadej

    by corvo on Mon Aug 26, 2013 at 09:58:51 AM PDT

    •  I agree with that too (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Rusty Pipes

      but where we are right now, the question of Congressional authorization is a crucial speed bump that ought to be defended.

      •  Well, yeah, but only because (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Mr Robert

        Congress isn't in session.  But really, in terms of waging war, the Constitution was suspended long ago.  Sometimes we get "authorizations"; sometime we don't.

        Dogs from the street can have all the desirable qualities that one could want from pet dogs. Most adopted stray dogs are usually humble and exceptionally faithful to their owners as if they are grateful for this kindness. -- H.M. Bhumibol Adulyadej

        by corvo on Mon Aug 26, 2013 at 10:46:04 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  no, the Constitution wasn't suspended (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Mr Robert, VClib

          the reality is murkier than that. On the rare occasions when these questions have been tested in court, the courts have basically said: we're not going to be more zealous in defending Congressional war powers than Congress is.

          So, basically Congress and the American people get as much Congressional war powers as they're willing to fight for.

          •  Since the Constitution doesn't give either (0+ / 0-)

            Congress or the People permission to ignore the requirement that Congress declare war (absent an Amendment to the Constitution saying so) failing to have Congress declare war means the Constitution has been suspended.

            Enough fossil fuel remains on Earth to warm it 6 degrees C by 2100 AD if it is all used. A +6 C planet will only sustain half a billion humans. Human population will rise to 9 billion by 2050. Any questions?

            by davidincleveland on Mon Aug 26, 2013 at 12:28:51 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  No it hasn't (0+ / 0-)

              The Constitution CLEARLY grants that power to the Congress. They are free to abdicate that authority. They are NOT beholden by ANY language in the Constitution to exercise it. If you believe otherwise, feel free to cite it. Good luck with that.
              Furthermore, the ultimate authority for determining what is or is not constitutional lies in the Judicial branch. If they rule that it is Congresses call, that interpretation is legal, per se.

    •  Let them sort it out themselves (0+ / 0-)

      like they did in Rwanda. Right?

  •  I certainly hope that no strike on Syria (4+ / 0-)

    happens, or that if it does, it's pursuant to Congressional authorization or in response to a Syrian attack on US personnel.

    For too long, Presidents of both parties have been able to tread all over the delegation to Congress of the power to start a war.

    Once a war is declared, it's the President's job to execute it. It's not his task to decide whether or not the war starts - contrary to Le Shrub's declaration, the President is not in this instance "the decider".

    "Violence never requires translation, but it often causes deafness." - Bareesh the Hutt.

    by Australian2 on Mon Aug 26, 2013 at 10:03:20 AM PDT

  •  Or, Why Booker wanted to avoid the Senate (0+ / 0-)

    So many votes that come back to haunt

    Learn about Centrist Economics, learn about Robert Rubin's Hamilton Project. www.hamiltonproject.org

    by PatriciaVa on Mon Aug 26, 2013 at 10:09:04 AM PDT

  •  My problem with this diary (0+ / 0-)

    is that Congressional approval would be the least of the President's worries.  I can't imagine why he wouldn't ask for it; he would probably receive overwhelming majorities approving military action if he asked today.

    Dogs from the street can have all the desirable qualities that one could want from pet dogs. Most adopted stray dogs are usually humble and exceptionally faithful to their owners as if they are grateful for this kindness. -- H.M. Bhumibol Adulyadej

    by corvo on Mon Aug 26, 2013 at 10:40:04 AM PDT

    •  re: My problem with this diary (3+ / 0-)

      I don't agree. I don't think it's a foregone conclusion. Because before the vote, there would have to be a debate. And in the debate, skeptics would get to raise concerns. Right now skeptics have trouble getting a word in edgewise, because we're in the middle of the initial media storm. That's how a rush to war works. That's why it's crucial to slow down a rush to war with democratic procedure and the rule of law.

    •  well (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Robert Naiman, davidincleveland

      Polling says most people are opposed to intervention of any kind, so if congresspeople approved, they'd also be on the hook for the inevitable fallout, which some of them may not be up for.

      •  re: well (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        davidincleveland

        That's exactly right.

        Here's a proposition that I would bet most of us could agree on: we'll be disgusted with Members of Congress who dodge the ball and then say, wah wah, the President didn't consult us. Congress is on recess, but somehow Corker and Engel managed to have a say. Members of Congress who care about Congressional war powers could also speak up.

         

      •  most Congresscritters (0+ / 0-)

        are in districts safely gerrymandered for their survival, and only 1/3 of the Senate has even remotely anything to worry about.

        I don't think fallout from Operation Iraqi Freedom dislodged a single Senator.

        Dogs from the street can have all the desirable qualities that one could want from pet dogs. Most adopted stray dogs are usually humble and exceptionally faithful to their owners as if they are grateful for this kindness. -- H.M. Bhumibol Adulyadej

        by corvo on Mon Aug 26, 2013 at 12:05:58 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  It dislodged Joe Lieberman (0+ / 0-)

          admittedly, with a six year delay, as it unfortunately turned out. But it did dislodge him.

          Also, it kept Hillary Clinton from winning the Democratic Presidential nomination, and helped Barack Obama win it. That is not a trivial impact.

          •  Oh, I don't think that's the only thing (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            davidincleveland

            that dislodged Holy Joe.  And I'm not sure it made a lot of difference in the Hillary Clinton case either . . . and if it did, the joke's on us!  Those of us who voted for Obama figuring his foreign policy could be no worse than hers were, well, quickly and rudely disabused of that notion.

            Dogs from the street can have all the desirable qualities that one could want from pet dogs. Most adopted stray dogs are usually humble and exceptionally faithful to their owners as if they are grateful for this kindness. -- H.M. Bhumibol Adulyadej

            by corvo on Mon Aug 26, 2013 at 12:45:11 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  Unfortunately, (3+ / 0-)

      as in Iraq, far too many hawkish Democrats (who aspire to higher office or need to raise big money from hawkish donors) would be with Engel on this, if it were to come to a vote.  The PNAC agenda for reshaping the Middle East (with big targets on Syria and Iran) had more than a few Democratic signatories.  We need not only to remind Obama that Congress should vote on this.  We need to let Congresscritters know that 60% of the American public oppose this -- and that includes voters in their district, who will be paying attention.

      It isn't nice to go to jail ... but if that's freedom's price

      by Rusty Pipes on Mon Aug 26, 2013 at 01:51:56 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  re: Unfortunately (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        davidincleveland, Rusty Pipes

        I agree with you that some Dems would be with Engel. But let's not let them get away with being with Engel for free. Let them cast a vote.

        •  Few congresscritters are as extreme as Engel, (0+ / 0-)

          who introduced the AIPAC-sponsored Syria Accountability Act in the Spring of 2002, reintroduced it in the Spring of 2003.  According to Mearsheimer and Walt:

          ... In mid-August, Engel and a group of politicians and Jewish leaders from New York traveled to Israel and met for ninety minutes with Ariel Sharon in his Jerusalem office.  The Israeli leader complained to his visitors that the United States was not putting enough pressure on Syria, although he specifically thanked Engel for sponsoring the Syria accountability Act and made it clear that he strongly favored continued efforts to push the legislation on Capitol Hill.  The following month, Engel, who announced he was "fed up with the ... administration's maneuvering on Syria," began pushing the bill again.  With AIPAC's full support, Engel began rounding up votes on Capitol Hill.  Bush could no longer hold Congress back in the face of this full-court press from the lobby, and the anti-Syrian act passed by overwhelming margins (398-4 in the House; 89-4 in the Senate).  Bush signed it into law on December 12, 2003.(pp275-6).
          {Bush was} slow to implement the Syria Accountability Act, as he promised when he signed it, much to the irritation of pro-Israel hard-liners in the United States.  By the spring of 2004, Congressman Engel and some of his colleagues were so frustrated with Bush over his foot dragging that they threatened to introduce a new and tougher version of the legislation. (p.277)
          The ever tightening American sanctions on Syria over the past decade have contributed significantly to the current crisis in its economy, and related effects on Syrian civilians, thanks to Elliot Engel.  But the hawks want to portray their eagerness to intervene in Syria as concern for the suffering of the Syrian People, and America's Responsibility to Protect.

          It isn't nice to go to jail ... but if that's freedom's price

          by Rusty Pipes on Tue Aug 27, 2013 at 03:55:13 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  Um, hello? (0+ / 0-)

      Republicans in Congress wouldn't vote this president the authority to do diddly squat if the attack on Pearl Harbor happened today. Let's get real, ok?

      If President Obama is for something, Congressional Republicans are reflexively against it.

      •  re: Um, hello? (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Rusty Pipes

        Your assertion is provably not true. It's not how the vote on the Amash-Conyers amendment to limit NSA blanket surveillance of Americans went down: the majority of House Republicans voted with the Administration and the majority of House Democrats voted against the Administration. It's not the way the key vote on the Jim McGovern amendment to limit the Afghanistan war went down, again, the majority of House Republicans voted with the Administration and the majority of House Democrats voted against the Administration.

        In short: on issues of war and peace, and on civil liberties issues, it's not like that at all.

  •  Signed the petition... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Robert Naiman, davidincleveland

    fwiw.

    "People are more than the worst things that they do,"--Chris Hayes

    by chicating on Mon Aug 26, 2013 at 01:23:37 PM PDT

  •  Thanks for the heads up, RN! n/t (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Robert Naiman, davidincleveland

    It isn't nice to go to jail ... but if that's freedom's price

    by Rusty Pipes on Mon Aug 26, 2013 at 01:52:44 PM PDT

  •  Got your email, signed (for what it's worth) T&R. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Robert Naiman

    Enough fossil fuel remains on Earth to warm it 6 degrees C by 2100 AD if it is all used. A +6 C planet will only sustain half a billion humans. Human population will rise to 9 billion by 2050. Any questions?

    by davidincleveland on Mon Aug 26, 2013 at 02:18:18 PM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site