Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

jakeXT

(10,575 posts)
Tue Aug 27, 2013, 05:44 PM Aug 2013

Avoiding Congress Because Isolationists May Block Attack on Syria ?




Todd added that, as long as action against Syria is relatively quick, the administration believes that they will be legally protected from claims that they violated the War Powers Act.

Todd added that a vote to intervene in Syria may not pass because "isolationists" in both the Democratic and Republican parties would attempt to block a resolution authorizing the use of force.

"Oh, by the way, it would delay any potential action," Todd added. "If you believe you've got to do this in a certain period of time to save lives because you're trying to make sure he doesn't use chemical weapons again, then you're sort of defeating the purpose of the quick action."
11 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Avoiding Congress Because Isolationists May Block Attack on Syria ? (Original Post) jakeXT Aug 2013 OP
We have to hurry up before the sane people stop us! Laelth Aug 2013 #1
yup, I hears it too,. Civilization2 Aug 2013 #2
What a fucking TOOL this guy is... MrMickeysMom Aug 2013 #3
Does our government sulphurdunn Aug 2013 #4
"If you believe you've got to do this in a certain period of time to save lives" bloomington-lib Aug 2013 #5
A quick war, get in and get out... AsahinaKimi Aug 2013 #6
More like twice.... blackspade Aug 2013 #8
Agree HatTrick Aug 2013 #9
Chuck Todd is such a warmongering shill. blackspade Aug 2013 #7
But Congress declares war, not the President. nt silvershadow Aug 2013 #10
HOW MUCH TIME IT TAKES IS UNKNOWN, IF YOU DON'T BELIEVE ME... drynberg Aug 2013 #11

Laelth

(32,017 posts)
1. We have to hurry up before the sane people stop us!
Tue Aug 27, 2013, 05:46 PM
Aug 2013

Is that what I am hearing? Really?

I am beyond disappointed.

-Laelth

 

Civilization2

(649 posts)
2. yup, I hears it too,.
Tue Aug 27, 2013, 06:12 PM
Aug 2013

Much as I would like to stop the bloodshed,. bombing does not seem like an answer to anyone,. except the corporate-military and the mercenary contractors they employ.

bloomington-lib

(946 posts)
5. "If you believe you've got to do this in a certain period of time to save lives"
Tue Aug 27, 2013, 06:47 PM
Aug 2013

I'm betting this will have the exact opposite outcome.

AsahinaKimi

(20,776 posts)
6. A quick war, get in and get out...
Tue Aug 27, 2013, 07:42 PM
Aug 2013

Correct me if I am wrong, but did not George W. Bush say roughly the same thing once?

HatTrick

(129 posts)
9. Agree
Wed Aug 28, 2013, 12:15 AM
Aug 2013

That is what I find really creepy here. Different President, but same language like "the President hasn't yet decided to attack".

drynberg

(1,648 posts)
11. HOW MUCH TIME IT TAKES IS UNKNOWN, IF YOU DON'T BELIEVE ME...
Wed Aug 28, 2013, 09:09 AM
Aug 2013

Just look at Rummy when we invaded IRAQ...y'know, quick in and out, and we'll even make money on the deal...yeah, right. What a crock they're trying to pedal. Don't buy it for a second.

Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»Video & Multimedia»Avoiding Congress Because...