General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsOver 50 House Democrats oppose "unwise war... without adhering to constitutional requirements."
At least 52 co-signers have signed Rep. Barbara Lee's letter, stating, "While the ongoing human rights violations and continued loss of life are horrific, they should not draw us into an unwise war - especially without adhering to our own constitutional requirements."
(Interestingly, in some of the sloppiest reporting of the day, the Washington Post used this letter as the basis for a misleading headline which blared,
"More than 50 House Democrats also want Syria strike resolution",
and began with the line,
"There appears to be notable bipartisan support for a formal congressional resolution authorizing a U.S. military strike on Syria...",
leaving it to those who read beyond the headlines to discover that Democrats were opposing unwise, unauthorized action, and asserting their constitutional responsibilities, not clamoring for military strikes, as the Post's misleading headline suggested.)
The full text of Rep. Lee's letter, available at Rep. Lee's Congressional website:
August 29, 2013
President Barack Obama
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20500
Dear Mr. President:
We join you and the international community in expressing unequivocal condemnation over the news that chemical weapons were reportedly used by the government of Syria.
While we understand that as Commander in Chief you have a constitutional obligation to protect our national interests from direct attack, Congress has the constitutional obligation and power to approve military force, even if the United States or its direct interests (such as embassies) have not been attacked or threatened with an attack.
As such, we strongly urge you to seek an affirmative decision of Congress prior to committing any U.S. military engagement to this complex crisis.
While the ongoing human rights violations and continued loss of life are horrific, they should not draw us into an unwise war - especially without adhering to our own constitutional requirements.
We strongly support the work within the United Nations Security Council to build international consensus condemning the alleged use of chemical weapons and preparing an appropriate response; we should also allow the U.N. inspectors the space and time necessary to do their jobs, which are so crucial to ensuring accountability.
As elected officials, we have a duty to represent the will and priorities of our constituents, consistent with the Constitution we all swore to uphold and defend. Before weighing the use of military force, Congress must fully debate and consider the facts and every alternative, as well as determine how best to end the violence and protect civilians. We stand ready to work with you.
http://lee.house.gov/sites/lee.house.gov/files/Lee%20Letter%20to%20President%20Obama_Syria.pdf
JustAnotherGen
(31,818 posts)At outlining the need for in depth discussion and caution in our actions. Keith Ellison, Rush Holt, John Lewis etc etc - there are decent people - people of reason and fact - in agreement. I want a full discussion and not knee jerk news articles and "leaks" that I don't believe are happening. They continue to twist everything for advertising dollars.
David__77
(23,372 posts)We need a majority of the house to call for a vote. I'm ashamed that my congresswoman is not a signatory to this letter.
Faryn Balyncd
(5,125 posts)bunnies
(15,859 posts)This is very good to hear.
MNBrewer
(8,462 posts)Makes me proud!
dflprincess
(28,075 posts)but McCollum, Walz and Peterson are all missing.
Autumn
(45,066 posts)rec
ananda
(28,858 posts)..
another_liberal
(8,821 posts)Lets not let President Obama down by being too shy or too embarrassed to tell him how we feel. He may think he has to attack or we will lose our respect for him. We have to let him know we will still support him, and we want him to do what is right, even if that means waiting, even if that means taking back a threat to attack.
Tell the President we do not want war with Syria, or with anyone else in the Middle East.
Supersedeas
(20,630 posts)FiveGoodMen
(20,018 posts)Is that sarcasm?
Because if he's REALLY making life-and-death decisions based on whether we'll like him, he's unfit to be POTUS.
another_liberal
(8,821 posts)I was not intending sarcasm. He is only human and, like most anyone, can be swayed by the whims of the crowd.
DJ13
(23,671 posts)An enthusiastic K&R!
pa28
(6,145 posts)smokey nj
(43,853 posts)freshwest
(53,661 posts)Syria is having a civil war. I don't want us to pick a side unless they really want to help all the people of Syria.
Not just their group or have ambitions of ethnic cleansing or slaughtering others as has occured.
And why did McCain go and visit a rebel group, was he trying to make an illegal foreign alliance?
Were they willing to get with his friends who still want to carry out their PNAC objectives?
Obama will likely find a way out of this. Mitt said it needed to be done yesterday and he'd get right on it. Let this old way of doing things pass.
I wonder if Obama was actually counting on the public to reject it so he could avoid it,wanted them to call his bluff. He has tried to stay out of it years despite calls from the RW.
Now the spat of media stories created a crisis atmosphere and he had to react. But it's already Thursday when people said this attack would be starting up.
Let's let go home on this note, and take care of ourselves. I know that may sound selfish. But we need to focus on peace more than ever.
There is an entrenched voting block in this country that does make money off these wars. They need to have something else to do.
That's why as bad as the Sequester is, and it is, the cuts made those who thought they could make money off of war and cover it up with political reasons, had to face it. And some have left it, realized it's not what America wants anymore.
The others will be voting against us in 2014 and 2016. We need to keep moving forward and get more progressives in the Congress.
BTW, Lee has always been a favorite. Not to mention Lewis, etc. This should work.
truebluegreen
(9,033 posts)but he'll be hearing from me.
Thanks.
Tiredofthesame
(62 posts)And I just emailed him.
Thanks for the post!
99Forever
(14,524 posts)RiverStone
(7,228 posts)K & R
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)We'll see who votes for the appropriations. Wanna bet on how many Dems will approve? Oh well ...uhm ...you can just see and hear the repukes on the attack about who is not voting to fund our wonderful military during our alignment with Al Quaida. The enemy of our enemy is not going work this time.
forestpath
(3,102 posts)philly_bob
(2,419 posts)sheshe2
(83,750 posts)proverbialwisdom
(4,959 posts)awoke_in_2003
(34,582 posts)Maybe if we start calling our reps (mine is Burgess, he won't listen but will hear anyways) more will jump on the bandwagon.
City Lights
(25,171 posts)RainDog
(28,784 posts)let Congress do the job they're supposed to do.
silvershadow
(10,336 posts)Blanks
(4,835 posts)I also think that if there is some top secret national security threat that we don't know about that makes our representative government afraid NOT to attack - they need to un-fucking-classify it enough so that they are convincing in their march to war.
So far they haven't told us anything that it wouldn't be more appropriate for the UN to handle.
They want war, they need to convince us that its in our best interest. That's why congress is supposed to declare war. If it isn't popular with a lot of people - it isn't supposed to happen.
senseandsensibility
(17,026 posts)k and r.
LittleBlue
(10,362 posts)A true patriot
Shameless WaPo
NorthCarolina
(11,197 posts)All I can think about is Bush Jr's. shit faced grin, childish chuckle and derp'ish head bob as he proclaimed "I'm a war president now".
Ford_Prefect
(7,895 posts)We need as much visible support as possible for the idea that ANY military action in Syria is unwise. All the possible actions only make worse a very complicated civil war among groups who share no interest in democratic reform.
Faryn Balyncd
(5,125 posts)senseandsensibility
(17,026 posts)Rhiannon12866
(205,268 posts)blkmusclmachine
(16,149 posts)PotatoChip
(3,186 posts)G_j
(40,367 posts)Berlum
(7,044 posts)nt
B Calm
(28,762 posts)the hell out of Syria.
Roland99
(53,342 posts)intheflow
(28,463 posts)heaven05
(18,124 posts)I was asking a good friend where the Democrats were on this proposed strike. Thankfully this answers that question. I will forward this info to my friend who will also be happy to see this.
DissidentVoice
(813 posts)Voices like yours need to be heard - and heeded!
kentuck
(111,089 posts)Also, it is the legal and constitutional way to go.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)challenged.
WillyT
(72,631 posts)bvar22
(39,909 posts)The Congresswoman's voice trails off. Along with the name-calling came threats on her life. She moves around Washington these days shadowed by a plainclothes police officer who has been assigned to serve as a 'round-the-clock bodyguard.
What did Lee do to earn such threats?
On September 14, she voted against the House bill that granted President Bush broad authority to use force to counter the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. She was the sole member of Congress to do so. "I am convinced," she said on the House floor, "that military action will not prevent further acts of international terrorism against the United States."
In the face of polls suggesting that close to 90 percent of Americans favored some use of force in response to the attacks, Lee's dissent was risky. "Obviously, this was not a poll-driven decision," she jokes.
Lee objected to several aspects of the resolution. "It did not identify who we were to be fighting," she says. "It did not contain an end strategy. The bottom line is to save lives and to make the world a more peaceful place. We can't do that by moving in a direction that will create a cycle of violence. As a nation, we've got to understand the implications of what we are doing."
She also objected to Congress abdicating its constitutional role.
"Congress," she argues, "has a responsibility to step back and say, 'Let's not rush to judgment.' Let us insist that our democracy works by ensuring the checks and balances are in place and that Congress is part of the decision making process in terms of when we go to war and with whom. This resolution really took away that ability of Congress to play a role, and I don't think that's a good thing. I think we disenfranchised the American people."
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Political_Reform/Lone_Dissenter_BLee.html
A GREAT Democrat & Patriot.
We need more leaders like Barbara Lee.
NewJeffCT
(56,828 posts)everybody from the House & Senate together would be over 250.
Beer Swiller
(44 posts)She hasn't gone against Obama too often, but this is good to see.
truedelphi
(32,324 posts)Dead and wounded, but as long as many horrific deaths are "in our interests," so what, right?
Syria does not like our IMF and World Bank policies, and its national officials refuse to allow such entities to operate inside its borders, so clearly they are not acting in our interests. So no slack for their leader, even if he didn't do it.
NuttyFluffers
(6,811 posts)she was my congressional rep until that bastard "neutral panel" redistricted me away! curses!
Precisely
(358 posts)pscot
(21,024 posts)my Democratic congressman
I note that you have not yet signed Rep. Barbara Lee's letter rejecting an attack on Syria. I'll make this simple: if you don't publicly oppose intervention in Syria and vote against it in Congress, I will never vote for you again.