Did you support the President going thru Congress?

[kentuck]

Or would you have preferred he made the decision alone to bomb Syria?

Did he not have to address the issue once the Republicans and the media made a big deal about the "red line"?

If you supported the President going thru Congress, what would you prefer he do next?

I think the President is doing all he can do under the circumstances.

What would be your recommendations?

[BlueToTheBone]

1. I support his decision to go to Congress

and I hope that he will abide by the decision made and not circumvent like Reagan did.

[Erose999]

2. I don't support fucking with Syria. No way no how. It seems that "no" is not an option though as

PNAC Incorporated (aka: Congress) will probably pass it

[leftstreet]

3. He takes War to Congress, but not Single Payer

[kentuck]

4. But I don't think the Constitution says anything about Single Payer?

But it does in regard to "war".

[leftstreet]

6. Yeah, yeah. That wasn't the point though

He has done JACK SHIT for Americans

He's been whining for 5 fucking years that Congress is obstructionist and just meanies to him, and his loyal supporters remind us every day that his poor widdle hands are tied

He hasn't even TRIED to help his own citizens, but he fairly RUNS to Congress to get approval to bomb a sovereign nation

[Adrahil]

20. No offense, but that's ridiculous.

I fully support single payer. I bet in his heart, so does Obama. But you know, or SHOULD know, that single payer has not a snowballs chance in hades of getting passed by this Congress.

[leftstreet]

22. Oh please. 'in his heart'

[liberal_at_heart]

21. +1000000

[hrmjustin]

5. I support his going to congress. What happens after that is out of my hands.

If it happens I hope it is quick and no ground troops.

[Isoldeblue]

7. +1 n/t

[HardTimes99]

8. You're asking if we prefer that Obama violate international law by himself alone or

make Congress his accessory to the war crimes about to ensue?

Talk about a Hobson's Choice!

[kentuck]

9. Can we ascertain that you are for neither option?

How should he have handled the "red line" attacks by the Repubs and the media? Did he not have to address that at all?

I am playing devil's advocate here.

[HardTimes99]

12. The proper venue under international law to address such allegations is the

U.N. Security Council. Any attack on Syria without a U.N. Security Council resolution beforehand constitutes a war crime and breach of the peace.

[kentuck]

24. If a majority of Repubs vote against it...

...they will have enough to impeach him, with the same votes after the action is done, don't you think? He is stepping into a trap - a big trap. If he could get the Security Council to agree to some action, then his bases would be covered. But the Repubs cannot be trusted, in my humble opinion.

[Demo_Chris]

10. Yes. That's what the constitution requires...

And I hope that both parties in Congress (and our party in particular) tell him to get bent.

[onehandle]

11. Fuck Congress. He didn't need shit from them.

That being said, it was good politics.

Fuck The Teabagger Congress!

[NuclearDem]

13. To go to war, you bet he needs them

[onehandle]

15. He did the right thing. But historically, he didn't 'need' to go to them.

He's not your average President.

[Yo_Mama]

23. Constitutionally speaking, he does

As C-in-C, a president can always use military force to respond to an immediate attack on the US, or US forces, or where already authorized by Congress. But the president does not have the constitutional authority to simply attack another country, even in a case like this.

Presidential power:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articleii#section2

The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States;

Congressional power:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articlei#section8

To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations;

To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;

To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;

To provide and maintain a navy;

To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;

To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

Note particularly that "offenses against the law of nations". It is Congress that has the constitutional authority to decide whether an offense against the law of nations has occurred, and Congress who has the authority to decide to punish such an offense.

[Waiting For Everyman]

14. Going to Congress was an excellent decision,

it was in a way almost worth having this strike come up to have this happen. Not entirely of course, but it's a very big deal as I see it, and very fortunate on that limited point.

If he had gone forward alone, it would've been an utter disaster.

I'd recommend now, if he gets the resolution, taking his time and giving the world and the UN a chance to catch up before making a move. If he doesn't get it, he shouldn't go ahead, but wait and Assad will probably make an even bigger mistake that is even more obvious before too long.

He needs the world on board, and he needs Syrian public support on board, before going ahead. Time is on his side in delaying until he gets that.

[kentuck]

25. He would have been impeached.

They may still try it, if he goes thru with the plan?

[David__77]

16. I suppose any many entities telling him "NO" as possible.

If they say "YES," then congress deserves the shit stain on them too. So, yeah, I'm all for it.

[maddezmom]

17. Yes, I think it was the right decision.

[Yo_Mama]

18. I support the Constitutional process, yes

Because President Obama did follow the constitutional process, it's now in Congress' hands.

Because it is in Congress' hands, the relevant question is what Congress should do next. I would hope that at a minimum they evaluate the evidence and also evaluate the options before making the decision to authorize an act of war - which is what this will be.

[HereSince1628]

19. Yes. Meanwhile all the preparations can be made and the plans "gamed"

so that the force can be as agile as possible when the time comes for the inevitable necessity of improvisation.

[mike_c]

26. neither-- it's a war crime, so we should not be considering or discussing it at all....

eom