In 2007, President Obama made campaign promises about when the President would use military force. Other than responding to an imminent peril, Obama wrote that use of force without Congressional approval was not sound policy.
On August 27, 2013, the neocons sent Obama a letter demanding he use force in Syria because a purported "red line" had been crossed. The letter is signed by Karl Rove, William Kristol, other neocons, and not one sitting member of Congress. That's odd. Where are the supposedly tough Republicans like McConnell, McCain, Boehner, Eric Cantor, Lindsey Graham or any of the rest of them? And why doesn't Senator Lieberman introduce legislation authorizing the use of force in Syria?
A budget battle is again looming. At minimum, Obama should demand Congress authorize the strike and provide some revenue increase to pay for it.
Seems pretty clear Obama is caving to these fools once again. Full letter and Obama's promises below the fold. If you think a Syria strike is a bad idea, or that acting without specific Congressional authorization a really bad idea, or that running up bills when you are out of money is a bad idea, then complain to the White House. I did.
The Republican Neocons are at it again. The same folk who thought the Iraq War was a great idea and claim a grand success (though to this date it appears none have decided to visit, let alone live, in the post-invasion Iraq) have now demanded the President unilaterally strike Syria. On August 27, 2013, they sent Obama a letter demanding a strike on Syria because the purported “red line” was crossed. The full letter is reprinted at http://www.motherjones.com/...
Oddly, not one elected Congressional Republican signed the letter. We have former Senators Lieberman and Coleman. No Congressman signed the letter. Karl Rove signed the letter, which is strong proof that striking Syria is a very bad idea.
And shouldn’t the NeoCon’s letter at least be addressed to the Republicans controlling Congress—Boehner, Kantor, or Senators McConnell, Graham and McCain?
From the administration’s comments, it seems pretty clear President Obama is going to cave in once again to the people who think force creates lasting solutions and people like Senator McCain who just love fights. The US will strike Syria without Congressional, UN or NATO approval. What a joke.
Why the President does not demand Congress decide the question of whether to use military force in Syria is very disturbing. Let Congress do their job. Looks like President Obama will break some campaign promises. In 2007, this is what Candidate Obama wrote in response to some written questions.
2. In what circumstances, if any, would the president have constitutional authority to bomb Iran without seeking a use-of-force authorization from Congress? (Specifically, what about the strategic bombing of suspected nuclear sites -- a situation that does not involve stopping an IMMINENT threat?)
"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.”
http://www.boston.com/...
See
I say:
1) read Kennedy The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers and stop repeating the errors history’s lessons should teach the US;
2) At the very least, Obama’s statement about History’s lessons answer #2 above was correct and he should demand a resolution of Congress before using military force;
3) Since we have a budget ceiling problem looming, he should demand a revenue increase increase to pay for the costs of the military strike;
and 4) its disgusting that President Obama keeps caving to the neocon fools and the chickenhawk braggarts. We elected him on a promise not to do so. If the Republicans demand dumb actions, then leave it to them to both authorize and pay for them.
Lost in the debate is the strains now put on Secretary of State Kerry, an actual war hero who got shit on by a bunch of cowards when he ran for President. Now he’s sort of boxed into being “strong” and authorizing force or the neocons will dredge up all the shit they threw on him. However, Kerry's never going to earn the NeoCon's favor, even if he does advocating use of force now that he is Secretary of State. Better to view the republican’s constant criticism of anything done by a democrat as irrelevant to any rational discussion.
Note: I thought Senator Lieberman was still sitting when this was first published and have corrected my error.