when was the last time congress failed to approve military action when given the chance?

[unblock]

personally i think they're incapable of it, and likely have been at least as far back as december 8, 1941.


congress will likely express itself by limiting the scope of military action, but they will authorize some military action.

as much as republicans love saying no to obama, they can't say no to the defense industry.



the authorization for military action against syria will pass, mark my words.

[David__77]

1. Well I'll be doing what I can personally to work for it to be a first.

We came close with the Persian Gulf War. If Republicans and progressive anti-war Democrats join together, it can be defeated.

[morningfog]

2. THe votes were counted before Obama's speech. Probably why he was so late.

He wouldn't have went to them if he wouldn't get the vote.

[sabrina 1]

7. I agree. A consensus was probably taken.

However, there is a small victory for the people in the sense that the symbolism of the, even if it is all fake behind the scenes, Balance of Powers.

It is a small thing but an important one. It's stunning to me how outraged the 'left' was when Bush claimed these powers, and now who a few on the 'left' appear to have developed amnesia about it.

So, the acknowledgement that this is most definitely the business of Congress is something. And I am so proud of all the American people who made it necessary to acknowledge that we DO have a Congress. I was beginning to think they had all left the country.

[devils chaplain]

3. I am betting it will pass with majorities of both parties. nt

[onehandle]

4. If the liberals and the teabaggers who don't want to give Obama an inch team up...

...it could fail.

[devils chaplain]

8. Outnumbered by moderate Dems and bloodlustful Neocons. nt

[sabrina 1]

9. You mean if the liberals who opposed Bush's war mongering and illegal and criminal

foreign adventures, remain true to their principles of opposing wars based on what we will later be told was, 'faulty intelligence' maybe, although I doubt it, we can stop this insane idea. Because it is 'faulty' to say the least as the British Parliament established without a doubt this past week.

I know nothing about tea-baggers i don't follow their antics. You appear to be more knowledgeable about that faction than the average DUer.

Btw, did you support Bush's wars? I'm trying to get a sense of why there is anyone here on DU where you could not find a single supporter of these ME invasions? I know it is a small minority but what changed their minds?

[reformist2]

5. Both sides are so divided, whether it passes or fails will be a bipartisan effort.

[gopiscrap]

6. Yeah I tend to agree with you

that's why I think we need to keep the heat on our elected reps and be out in the streets protesting

[Recursion]

10. Well, Hearst had to get somebody to blow up a ship before Congress would do it

But, yeah.

[unblock]

14. people are blinded by institutions and can't see where the real power is.

the president, and often congress, are in many cases effectively powerless to prevent certain things from happening.

piss off enough important people and you get impeached, voted out, primaried, scandalized, or killed.

often all a president can do is delay something for 4 or 8 years.

often congress is merely a conduit for the real power, most of which lies in heavily concentrated pockets of wealth these days.

hearst knew he and private war profiteers could make it happen.

and we see how little has changed.

[libdem4life]

11. Foregone conclusion...the political repercussions have already been assessed and assigned.

We wouldn't be having a public debate if there were a real political debate. We live in a warmongering age...the who, what, when, where and why are illusions we create to justify our pre-determined actions.

[Catherina]

12. Juan Cole thinks there's a possibility the " Left-Libertarian alliance in Congress could defeat" it

Juan Cole ‏@jricole 9h

Interesting possibility that a Left-Libertarian alliance in Congress could defeat Syria resolution

https://twitter.com/jricole/status/373872836273639424

I think it's up in the air.

Edit, There were worldwide protests today that are only going to gain momentum and look at this from Markpkessinger's thread

"I didn't join the Navy to . . ."



We spent years teaching people to fight Al-Qaeda. This isn't going to go over well with the military.

“All the war-propaganda, all the screaming and lies and hatred, comes invariably from people who are not fighting.” ― George Orwell

[Catherina]

15. Military and vets contacting Congress.

Just two examples up on my first page right now

Devin ‏@listeningdev 20m

@repjustinamash Navy vet, served in Iraq. Fight to keep my friends from fighting another war

https://twitter.com/listeningdev/status/374017677158658048

Jayel Aheram ‏@aheram 5h

@repjustinamash Marine vet, OIF IV-V here. Please vote no! Friends and I are calling it "the Amash coalition."

Another one:

Christopher T. IKE ‏@CT_IKE 1h

@repjustinamash 5 year vet. The Army sent me to Egypt, Afghanistan, and Iraq. Say no to Syria, please. It's a lose-lose situation.

[kenny blankenship]

13. There's always a first time for everything. Some day it will happen. You know it will.

Not with this gang of turd lickers, though.

[JaneQPublic]

16. Kosovo -- Congress voted no, but Clinton went in anyway.

At least that's what some military expert said today on TV

[MFrohike]

17. 1999

Clinton asked for a resolution after the fact and Congress refused. It definitely was not for principled reasons, though they could have highlighted the fact the entire Kosovo affair was blatantly unconstitutional since he conducted a war without congressional approval. He claimed the NATO pact was sufficient for authorization, but failed to explain how a treaty outweighs the constitution. Truman did the same in Korea. He claimed the UN resolution was sufficient and never got a resolution from Congress.

[unblock]

18. http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-106publ31/pdf/PLAW-106publ31.pdf

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-106publ31/pdf/PLAW-106publ31.pdf

does this not constitute authorization?

[MFrohike]

20. Debatable

The War Powers Act specifically disallows authorization via appropriations unless such authorization is explicitly allowed. Reno's DOJ argued against this, on the basic principle that Congress can't bind its own hands, but that reasoning is a bit weak. After all, Congress has the power to change federal law via statute. The failure to do so is indicative that it did not seek to indirectly amend the WPA through appropriations. I'll link the memo from the DOJ on this issue, so you can form your own opinion.

http://www.justice.gov/olc/final.htm

[pnwmom]

19. History is no guide to the behavior of Rethugs in this Congress.

The only thing they're consistent on is their obstructionism.

[B Calm]

21. They will vote no.

[Savannahmann]

22. Viet Nam. 1975

http://prospect.org/article/how-congress-got-us-out-vietnam

In 1975, Congress refused President Gerald Ford's last-minute request to increase aid to South Vietnam by $300 million, just weeks before it fell to communist control. Few legislators had taken the request seriously; many conservative Republicans and hawkish Democrats agreed by then that Vietnam was lost and that the expenditure would have been a waste