Impeachment warning - from a Democrat ?
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/dem-congressman-constitution-requires-congressional-authorization-use-force-against-syria_751350.html
http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=223932
( We must stop the Uniparty of War mongers - ostensible Democrats and Republicans , war mongers none the less )
http://hotair.com/archives/2013/08/28/syria-a-mission-destined-for-failure/
( Apart from the Constitutional issue and williness to spring forward without an UN authorization, just is the plan here ? Does this approach seem likely to get Assad attention - in the way we want , not as knucklehead amateurs ? The lurch into immediate action with an over the top response - didn't we just see this with the multiple Middle East / North Africa / Asian US Embassy closings and crazy series of drones attacks on anyone driving vehicles in Yemen ? )
Congress going to do its job or just play acting ?
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-08-28/boehner-sends-obama-letter-demanding-clear-unambiguous-explanation-syrian-interventi
( The House demands answers from the President regarding Syria .... )
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/dem-congressman-constitution-requires-congressional-authorization-use-force-against-syria_751350.html
Dem. Congressman: 'Constitution Requires Congressional Authorization on Use of Force Against Syria'
6:05 PM, AUG 28, 2013 • BY DANIEL HALPER
Democratic congressman Jerrold Nadler appears to be warning President Obama in a statement released today on striking Syria. "Constitution Requires Congressional Authorization on Use of Force Against Syria," reads the title of Nadler's statement.
The text of the statement reads:
The Constitution requires that, barring an attack on the United States or an imminent threat to the U.S., any decision to use military force can only be made by Congress -- not by the President. The decision to go to war -- and we should be clear, launching a military strike on another country, justified or not, is an act of war -- is reserved by the Constitution to the American people acting through their elected representatives in Congress.Since there is no imminent threat to the United States, there is no legal justification for bypassing the Constitutionally-required Congressional authorization. “Consultation” with Congress is not sufficient. The Constitution requires Congressional authorization.The American people deserve to have this decision debated and made in the open, with all the facts and arguments laid out for public review and debate, followed by a Congressional vote. If the President believes that military action against Syria is necessary, he should immediately call Congress back into session and seek the Constitutionally-required authorization.
Nadler is the ranking Democrat on the House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution and Civil Justice.
http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=223932
( We must stop the Uniparty of War mongers - ostensible Democrats and Republicans , war mongers none the less )
Is Our Leadership About To Commit Treason?
http://hotair.com/archives/2013/08/28/syria-a-mission-destined-for-failure/
( Apart from the Constitutional issue and williness to spring forward without an UN authorization, just is the plan here ? Does this approach seem likely to get Assad attention - in the way we want , not as knucklehead amateurs ? The lurch into immediate action with an over the top response - didn't we just see this with the multiple Middle East / North Africa / Asian US Embassy closings and crazy series of drones attacks on anyone driving vehicles in Yemen ? )
Syria: A mission destined for failure
POSTED AT 10:01 AM ON AUGUST 28, 2013 BY BRUCE MCQUAIN
One of the first things any military commander must do is define the mission clearly and succinctly. It must have a goal and that goal must be achievable with the assets the commander is willing or able to commit to the mission.
What it shouldn’t be is some nebulous one-over-the-world hand wave of a mission driven by politics and open to interpretation. Unfortunately, it appears that’s precisely the type mission the Obama administration is ginning up for Syria according to the NY Times:
President Obama is considering military action against Syria that is intended to “deter and degrade” President Bashar al-Assad’s government’s ability to launch chemical weapons, but is not aimed at ousting Mr. Assad from power or forcing him to the negotiating table, administration officials said Tuesday.
“Deter and degrade” are open to interpretation and Syria could and likely would initiate another chemical attack after the US attacks just to point out that they’re neither deterred or degraded.
Here’s the problem:
The strikes would instead be aimed at military units that have carried out chemical attacks, the headquarters overseeing the effort and the rockets and artillery that have launched the attacks, according to the options being reviewed within the administration.An American official said that the initial target lists included fewer than 50 sites, including air bases where Syria’s Russian-made attack helicopters are deployed. The list includes command and control centers as well as a variety of conventional military targets.
A) We’ve told them where we’ll strike. Since it is a limited strike and it is going to be against specific units, Syria has the option of dispersing them, an option I’m sure they’ll take. They’ll also likely disperse them in to highly populated urban areas where they can.
B) We’ve told them what we’re going to strike. Since they have thousands of artillery pieces capable of firing chemical shells, it is unlikely a limited strike is going to even seriously dent that capability. Moving artillery into the cities would likely deter the US more than the US would deter Syria. Helicopters can be moved as well. They don’t need long runways. Other aircraft will be dispersed And finally, command and control are easily moved and dispersed.
C) We’ve told them how we’re going to strike. It is clear that if an attack does happen it is not something that is supported by the majority of the American people for various reasons. Couple that with a seemingly risk averse commander and you can pretty well define how this will happen – missiles. Specifically Tomahawk missiles. Given our history of their use, you can pretty much guess at what and where they’ll be aimed.
D) We’ve pretty well told them it won’t be much of a strike.
Perhaps two to three missiles would be aimed at each site, a far more limited unleashing of American military power than past air campaigns over Kosovo or Libya.
Result?
Well even the administration knows this is a recipe for failure so they immediately engage is a classic attempt to lower expectations:
Some of the targets would be “dual use” systems, like artillery that is capable of firing chemical weapons as well as conventional rounds. Taking out those artillery batteries would degrade to some extent the government’s conventional force — but would hardly cripple Mr. Assad’s sizable military infrastructure and forces unless the air campaign went on for days or even weeks.The goal of the operation is “not about regime change,” a State Department spokeswoman, Marie Harf, said Tuesday. Seeking to reassure the public that the United States would not be drawn into a civil war in the Middle East, and perhaps to lower expectations of what the attack might accomplish, Obama administration officials acknowledged that their action would not accomplish Mr. Obama’s repeated demand that Mr. Assad step down.
And what would we accomplish? Well likely the opposite of what we hoped would happen – deterrence and degradation. Assad would be invited to prove the US wasn’t successful in either by doing what? Using chemical weapons once again. His reasoning would be that since he’s being accused of doing so, and supposedly punished for doing so, there’s no reason not to do it again.
Then what?
~McQ
UN Urges US to Wait as Arab League Opposes Attacking Syria
UN: Just Give Us Four Days for Inspection
by Jason Ditz, August 28, 2013
Investigators are already on the ground and say they can be done within just a few short days, according to UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, who said it was important to establish the facts before the war was launched.
The US has fought vigorously against the inspections, insisting that they are “too late,” that the official US narrative of what happened in Syria was “undeniable” and the UN needed to withdraw inspectors.
Experts say that the “too late” argument makes no sense, and that evidence of a real chemical weapons attack would last years and be virtually impossible to “cover up.” The US is still expected to start the war before the probe finishes, however, if for no other reason than to avoid the UN throwing a monkey wrench into their ambitions by revealing that the narrative is false.
The Arab League is also complicating matters after the US assumed they were on board, saying that while they endorse the US-rebel narrative they oppose military action against Syria.
The US has been desperately trying to shore up international support for the war, but apart from Britain and France they don’t appear to be getting much formal backing.
Still, that doesn’t seem to be dampening spirits at the White House, where war season is officially here and attacks are imminent. The last conceivable obstacle in their minds is the British parliament, since Prime Minister David Cameron is seeking some legal cover by wanting parliament to endorse his involvement. The US Congress will not be asked.
http://www.infowars.com/syria-us-aided-terrorists-in-chemical-attack-europe-next/
( Is the unseemly rush by the UK and US to start War with syria based on fears that plots may be revealed implicating other parties than the Assad government in War crimes - aka chemical warfare against civilian population . Crimes against humanity . Syria says dig deeper UN , dig deeper....)
Syria: US Aided Terrorists in Chemical Attack, Europe Next
Anthony Gucciardi
Infowars.com
August 28, 2013
Infowars.com
August 28, 2013
In an explosive declaration, Syria’s deputy foreign minister has now come out on record in declaring that the US, Britain, and France were instrumental in aiding the chemical attacks on Syria through a network of terrorists inside the country.
Going further with the intel on the subject, the Syrian official now says that the next target will be Europe. Confirming earlier reports by myself and powerhouse journalist Paul Joseph Watson that there was a US government element involved in the planning of the key chemical attacks as documented by Yahoo News, the deputy foreign minister told reporters outside of the Four Seasons hotel in Damascus that he had even presented the United Nations chemical weapons inspectors with bombshell information that reveals the US helped in ‘arming terrorist groups’ to carry out the attacks.
The admission is now featured on Reuters as a headline piece titled ‘Syria says ‘terrorists’ will strike Europe with chemical weapons’. The report goes on to state:
“Syria’s deputy foreign minister said on Wednesday that the United States, Britain and France helped “terrorists” use chemical weapons in Syria, and that the same groups would soon use them against Europe. Speaking to reporters outside the Four Seasons hotel in Damascus, Faisal Maqdad said he had presented U.N. chemical weapons inspectors with evidence that “armed terrorist groups” had used sarin gas in all the sites of alleged attacks.”
To break it down plainly, the deputy foreign minister is now adding power behind the January 2013 leaked emails that revealed plans for a major chemical attack as a pretext to war. And regardless of the validity of these emails, it highlights the consistent patterns of staged attacks in order to launch military action. In one such report from Yahoo News, the story reads:
“The Obama administration gave green signal to a chemical weapons attack plan in Syria that could be blamed on President Bashar al Assad’s regime and in turn, spur international military action in the devastated country, leaked documents have shown. As per the scheme ‘Qatar would fund rebel forces in Syria to usechemical weapons,’ the Daily Mail reports.”
But it’s not just the Syrian government saying this, or even just the largest website in the world (Yahoo) publishing this information through AIN. Even World Net Daily and highly reputable researcher Dr. Jerome Corsi have reached the same conclusions in their own investigations that this chemical attack was likely carried out by the Obama-backed rebels. Yesterday, Dr. Jerome Corsi shared similar revelations that now coincide with this groundbreaking report.
Bombshell: Evidence Syrian Rebels Carried Out Gas Attack
“It’s one of the most serious moments in world history US has ever faced”
Julie Wilson
Infowars.com
August 28, 2013
Infowars.com
August 28, 2013
In an interview with Alex Jones, American author and political commentator Dr. Jerome R. Corsi confirmed that Syrian rebels were behind the sarin gas attack in Syria last week. Video evidence and reliable Middle Eastern sources on the ground, Corsi says, prove Syrian rebels launched the attack in an attempt to take over the Syrian government.
He believes if the United States moves towards war with Syria it will surely result in World War 3.
After news broke of the alleged chemical weapons attack, Secretary of State John Kerry took to the stage giving a speech in which he called the attack a “cowardly crime” and a moral “obscenity.” Kerry claims to have “undeniable” proof of the Syrian government’s guilt, however unsurprisingly he failed to offer it to the public.
In an interview with a Russian newspaper, Syrian President Bashar Assad called the allegations “preposterous” and “completely politicized,” reported the LA Times. “How is it possible that any country would use chemical weapons, or any weapons of mass destruction, in an area where its own forces are located?”
Corsi argues several reasons for the US not to go to war with Syria. First off, the US cannot financially or economically sustain another war. “Russia and China are not borrowing $1 trillion a year to make their budget, and the world knows it,” said Corsi. Secondly, public opinion is not there, and it’s most likely not going to get there.
“The ramifications of getting into a shooting match with Russia and China is unpredictable,” said Dr. Corsi. “Risking a confrontation with Russia and possibly China is quite frightening and would become one of the most serious moments in US history.”
When Alex asked Dr. Corsi how Obama plans to get away with starting a war like this, he said Obama probably intends to continue “lying with impunity.”
A report by WND reveals evidence assembled from various Middle Eastern sources that “cast doubt on Obama administration claims the Assad government is responsible for last week’s attack.”
WND’s report says two YouTube videos show what looks like “Syrian rebel forces loading a canister of nerve gas on a rocket to fire presumably at civilians and possibly government forces.”
A screen capture from a Syrian TV report shows a chemical agent that appears to have been made in a “Saudi factory.” Another report from RT illustrates “captured rebel arsenals apparently with chemical agents manufactured in Saudi Arabia and gas masks,” support Russian claims that rebels are the culprits.
The report further states that an intercepted phone call between a terrorist affiliated with the rebel civilian militia and his Saudi Arabian boss indicates Syrian terrorists, not the Assad government, were behind the chemical weapons attack.
“The Syrian terrorist told him that one of the achievements of his “battalion” was the use of chemical weapons in Deir Ballba.
“The recorded phone call disclosed the cooperation between two terrorist groups in Syria to bring two bottles of Sarin Gas from the Barzeh neighborhood in Damascus,” reported WND.
Intelligence Suggests Assad Not Behind Chemical Weapons Attack
Intercepted phone calls indicate Syrian government did not order attack
Paul Joseph Watson
Infowars.com
August 28, 2013
Infowars.com
August 28, 2013
Intercepted phone calls that will be presented by the Obama administration as proof that Bashar Al-Assad was behind last week’s chemical weapons attack in Syria actually suggest that the attack was not ordered by the Syrian government.
Phone calls by the Syrian Ministry of Defense intercepted by Mossad and passed to the US reveal that Syrian government officials, “exchanged panicked phone calls with a leader of a chemical weapons unit, demanding answers for a nerve agent strike that killed more than 1,000 people,” in the hours after last week’s attack.
Why would the Syrian Ministry of Defense be making panicked phone calls “demanding answers” about the attack if they had ordered it?
The fact that the highest levels of the Syrian government apparently had no knowledge of the attack strongly suggests that they did not order it, with the worst case scenario being that the attack was “the work of a Syrian officer overstepping his bounds,” writes Foreign Policy’s Noah Shachtman.
“We don’t know exactly why it happened,” a US intelligence official told Foreign Policy. “We just know it was pretty fucking stupid.”
So despite not knowing exactly what happened, why it happened, or who ordered it, while sabotaging the UN’s investigation of the incident, the US is about to launch cruise missile attacks and potentially enflame the entire region based on evidence that actually suggests the Syrian government had no idea who was behind the chemical weapons attack.
Meanwhile, previous evidence that suggests the US-backed rebels prepared and used chemical weapons on numerous occasions has been completely forgotten in the rush to war.
The last time the United Nations investigated evidence of chemical weapons use in Syria, inspectors concluded that it was likely the rebels and not Assad’s forces who were behind the attacks.
In addition, leaked phone conversations that emerged earlier this year between two members of the Free Syrian Army contain details of a plan to carry out a chemical weapons attack capable of impacting an area the size of one kilometer.
There are also multiple other examples of video footage which shows US-backed rebels preparing and using chemical weapons.
The notion that Washington has any credibility when it comes to laying blame about weapons of mass destruction is ludicrous.
The last time the world believed the United States’ claims about Iraq’s non-existent WMD, hundreds of thousands of innocent people died as a result.
The Obama administration is about to launch the United States headlong into a conflict that could spark a new war in the Middle East, yet the very justification for the assault is being blithely accepted by the mainstream media, who have learned nothing from how their obsequious and unquestioning behavior prior to the 2003 invasion of Iraq helped grease the skids for a decade of bloodshed and disaster.
CONFIRMED: US Claims Against Syria – There is no Evidence
Tony Cartalucci
Infowars.com
August 28, 2013
Infowars.com
August 28, 2013
The Wall Street Journal has confirmed what many suspected, that the West’s so-called “evidence” of the latest alleged “chemical attacks” in Syria, pinned on the Syrian government, are fabrications spun up from the West’s own dubious intelligence agencies.
The Wall Street Journal reveals that the US is citing claims from Israel’s Mossad intelligence agency fed to the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), a repeat of the fabrications that led up to the Iraq War, the Libyan War, and have been used now for 3 years to justify continued support of extremists operating within and along Syria’s borders.
Wall Street Journal’s article, “U.S., Allies Prepare to Act as Syria Intelligence Mounts,” states:
One crucial piece of the emerging case came from Israeli spy services, which provided the Central Intelligence Agency with intelligence from inside an elite special Syrian unit that oversees Mr. Assad’s chemical weapons, Arab diplomats said. The intelligence, which the CIA was able to verify, showed that certain types of chemical weapons were moved in advance to the same Damascus suburbs where the attack allegedly took place a week ago, Arab diplomats said.
Both Mossad and the CIA are clearly compromised in terms of objectivity and legitimacy. Neither exists nor is expected to provide impartial evidence, but rather to facilitate by all means necessary the self-serving agendas, interests, and objectives of their respective governments.
That both Israel and the United States, as far back as 2007 have openly conspired together to overthrow the government of Syria through a carefully engineered sectarian bloodbath, discredits entirely their respective intelligence agencies. This is precisely why an impartial, objective third-party investigation has been called for by the international community and agreed upon by the Syrian government – a third-party investigation the US has now urged to be canceled ahead of its planned military strikes.
In an email on Sunday, White House National Security Adviser Susan Rice told U.N. Ambassador Samantha Power and other top officials that the U.N. mission was pointless because the chemical weapons evidence already was conclusive, officials said. The U.S. privately urged the U.N. to pull the inspectors out, setting the stage for President Barack Obama to possibly move forward with a military response, officials said.
The US then, not Syria, is attempting a coverup, with fabrications in place from discredited, compromised intelligence sources and the threat of impending military strikes that would endanger the UN inspection team’s safety should they fail to end their investigation and withdraw.
The Wall Street Journal also reiterated that the US is planning to fully sidestep the UN Security Council and proceed with its partners unilaterally:
…if the U.S. chose to strike, it would do so with allies and without the U.N., in order to sidestep an expected Russian veto.
The US proceeds now with absolute disregard for international law, all but declaring it has no intention of providing credible evidence of its accusations against the Syrian government. It is a rush to war with all the hallmarks of dangerous desperation as the West’s proxy forces collapse before the Syrian military. Western military leaders must consider the strategic tenants and historical examples regarding the dangers and folly of haste and imprudence in war – especially war fought to protect special interests and political agendas rather than to defend territory.
The populations of the West must likewise consider what benefits they have garnered from the last decade of military conquest their leaders have indulged in. Crumbling economies gutted to feed the preservation of special interests and the growing domestic security apparatuses to keep these interests safe from both domestic and foreign dissent are problems that will only grow more acute.
Outside of the West, in Moscow, Beijing, and Tehran, leaders must consider a future where Western special interests can invade with impunity, without public support, or even the tenuous semblance of justification being necessary.
This post originally appeared at Land Destroyer Report
Congress going to do its job or just play acting ?
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-08-28/boehner-sends-obama-letter-demanding-clear-unambiguous-explanation-syrian-interventi
( The House demands answers from the President regarding Syria .... )
Boehner Sends Obama Letter Demanding "Clear, Unambiguous Explanation" For Syrian Intervention
Submitted by Tyler Durden on 08/28/2013 17:58 -0400
The letter below was sent a short while ago by House Speaker John Boehner to the president, voicing the Republican's displeasure with the Commander In chief, and criticizing the level of consultation about a potential military strike as well as demanding a clear explanation of any mission in advance of its start. Sadly, since not even Obama is quite clear why his Wall Street-based advisors demand that the US rush head first into this deficit-boosting campaign (and whose primary purpose as we have been explaining for a month is to make the Untaper possible), we doubt Boehner will get a response. Separately, as the WSJ reports, 114 House lawmakers— 97 Republicans and only 17 Democrats— have signed a letter calling on Mr. Obama to seek congressional authorization before embarking on military action in Syria. We suspect that 17 would have been substantially greater if the president engaging in unauthorized war had a last name beginning with "Buh" and ending in "Oosh."
Full Boehner letter to Obama:
Dear Mr. President:
I deeply respect your role as our country’s commander-in-chief, and I am mindful that Syria is one of the few places where the immediate national security interests of the United States so visibly converge with broader U.S. security interests and objectives. Our nation’s response to the deterioration and atrocities in Syria has implications not just in Syria, but also for America’s credibility across the globe, especially in places like Iran.
Even as the United States grapples with the alarming scale of the human suffering, we are immediately confronted with contemplating the potential scenarios our response might trigger or accelerate. These considerations include the Assad regime potentially losing command and control of its stock of chemical weapons or terrorist organizations – especially those tied to al Qaeda – gaining greater control of and maintaining territory. How the United States responds also has a significant impact on the security and stability of U.S. allies in the region, which are struggling with the large exodus of Syrian refugees and the growing spillover of violence feeding off of ethnic and religious tensions. The House of Representatives takes these interests and potential consequences seriously in weighing any potential U.S. and international response in Syria.
Since March of 2011, your policy has been to call for a stop to the violence in Syria and to advocate for a political transition to a more democratic form of government. On August 18, 2012, you called for President Assad’s resignation, adding his removal as part of the official policy of the United States. In addition, it has been the objective of the United States to prevent the use or transfer of chemical weapons. I support these policies and publically agreed with you when you established your red line regarding the use or transfer of chemical weapons last August.
Now, having again determined your red line has been crossed, should a decisive response involve the use of the United States military, it is essential that you provide a clear, unambiguous explanation of how military action – which is a means, not a policy – will secure U.S. objectives and how it fits into your overall policy. I respectfully request that you, as our country’s commander-in-chief, personally make the case to the American people and Congress for how potential military action will secure American national security interests, preserve America’s credibility, deter the future use of chemical weapons, and, critically, be a part of our broader policy and strategy. In addition, it is essential you address on what basis any use of force would be legally justified and how the justification comports with the exclusive authority of Congressional authorization under Article I of the Constitution.
Specifically:
- What standard did the Administration use to determine that this scope of chemical weapons use warrants potential military action?
- Does the Administration consider such a response to be precedent-setting, should further humanitarian atrocities occur?
- What result is the Administration seeking from its response?
- What is the intended effect of the potential military strikes?
- If potential strikes do not have the intended effect, will further strikes be conducted?
- Would the sole purpose of a potential strike be to send a warning to the Assad regime about the use of chemical weapons? Or would a potential strike be intended to help shift the security momentum away from the regime and toward the opposition?
- If it remains unclear whether the strikes compel the Assad regime to renounce and stop the use of chemical weapons against the Syrian people, or if President Assad escalates their usage, will the Administration contemplate escalatory military action?
- Will your Administration conduct strikes if chemical weapons are utilized on a smaller scale?
- Would you consider using the United States military to respond to situations or scenarios that do not directly involve the use or transfer of chemical weapons?
- Assuming the targets of potential military strikes are restricted to the Assad inner circle and military leadership, does the Administration have contingency plans in case the strikes disrupt or throw into confusion the command and control of the regime’s weapons stocks?
- Does the Administration have contingency plans if the momentum does shift away from the regime but toward terrorist organizations fighting to gain and maintain control of territory?
- Does the Administration have contingency plans to deter or respond should Assad retaliate against U.S. interests or allies in the region?
- Does the Administration have contingency plans should the strikes implicate foreign power interests, such as Iran or Russia?
- Does the Administration intend to submit a supplemental appropriations request to Congress, should the scope and duration of the potential military strikes exceed the initial planning?
I have conferred with the chairmen of the national security committees who have received initial outreach from senior Administration officials, and while the outreach has been appreciated, it is apparent from the questions above that the outreach has, to date, not reached the level of substantive consultation.
It will take Presidential leadership and a clear explanation of our policy, our interests, and our objectives to gain public and Congressional support for any military action against Syria. After spending the last 12 years fighting those who seek to harm our fellow citizens, our interests, and our allies, we all have a greater appreciation of what it means for our country to enter into conflict. It will take that public support and congressional will to sustain the Administration’s efforts, and our military, as well as their families, deserve to have the confidence that we collectively have their backs – and a thorough strategy in place.
I urge you to fully address the questions raised above.
Sincerely
John Boehner
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/gop-congressman-boehner-call-house-back-now-deal-syria
( Will Congress demand that they actually be allowed to do their job as per the Constitution - regarding committing this nation to war ? )
GOP Congressman to Boehner: Call House Back Now to Deal With Syria
August 28, 2013 - 5:27 PM
(CNSNews.com) - Rep. Scott Rigell (R.-Va.)--who served six years in the Marine Corps Reserves, sits on the House Armed Services Committee, and represents the congressional district with the largest concentration of military personnel of any in the nation--said today he is calling on House Speaker John Boehner to call the House back into session to prevent President Barack Obama from usurping Congress’s constitutional authority to authorize—or not authorize—the use of military force in Syria.
“He should be calling the House back right now,” Rigell said of Boehner. “I will be clear on this.”
"I do have a call scheduled with one of our senior leaders this afternoon and I will be making that case," said Rigell. "I think we're at this point, and I regret that we're at this point. But that is where we are."Rigell sent a letter to President Obama today—co-signed by a bipartisan group of “over 100” House members--reminding the president that it is “clearly delineated” in the Constitution that the president must seek congressional authorization before using military force unless the use of force is needed to protect the United States from an attack.
“While the Founders wisely gave the Office of the President the authority to act in emergencies, they foresaw the need to ensure public debate—and the active engagement of Congress—prior to committing U.S. military assets,” Rigell wrote. “Engaging our military in Syria when no direct threat to the United States exists and without prior congressional authorization would violate the separation of powers that is clearly delineated in the Constitution.”
Obama expressed precisely this view of the constitutional war power when asked about the matter by the Boston Globe in an interview that was published on Dec. 20, 2007.
“The president does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation," Obama said at that time.
The draft language that the Constitutional Convention discussed on Aug. 17, 1787, according to notes that were taken that day by James Madison, gave Congress the power to “make war.” Madison himself and Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts "moved to insert 'declare,' striking out 'make' war; leaving to the Executive the power to repel sudden attacks." The convention accepted this change and the argument for it.
George Washington, who presided over the Constitutional Constitution, acted on this understanding of the war power when he was president. In 1793, Washington wrote: "The Constitution vests the power of declaring war with Congress, therefore no offensive expedition of importance can be undertaken until after they shall have deliberated upon the subject, and authorized such a measure."
Rigell said George Washington's understanding of the war power is reflected in the letter he and his colleagues have sent to the president.
“Prior to engaging U.S. forces, he must call us into joint session, make the case to the American people via their elected representatives—House and Senate--and seek and obtain statutory authority," said Rigell, "or if he is not successful in seeking or receiving that statutory authority, then he would be prohibited from taking action in Syria. It’s really that simple
Rigell said that if Obama does not do this he personally believes Boehner should call the House back into session immediately.
“Look, I don’t think it is in dispute that chemical weapons have been used," said Rigell. "I am quite sure that tragedy, as it unfolded, it is going to be clear that chemical weapons were used. And this is a tragic loss of life, and I think Secretary [of State John] Kerry was correct in describing it as a moral obscenity.
"Now, that said, the question is: What then, if anything, we should do here? And the president, in my view, has not been clear," said Rigell. "It is not clear what we are trying to achieve, or how it would be achieved. And, so, if that were brought to the floor for a vote, whether or not to initiate military action, I’d vote no. But I would also keep an open mind should the president follow the correct steps—and that is to call us into joint session and walk us through both what the facts are and what his logic is.
"I would be open to the argument," Rigell said. "But as the facts are presented today, I would vote no.”
Rigell said he believed there were only a “handful” of members of Congress on the Hill at this time--and that, in fact, while he has been up their working on this issue he had not run into anybody.
CNSNews.com asked Rigell what he would tell Speaker Boehner if he spoke to him right now.
Rigell said: “Mr. Speaker, based on what the president is saying right now, that I do think we need to get ahead of this. I think our conference needs to be bold and united—not only our conference, but so many members of the Democratic minority. It’s so important on this matter that it is not presented as a partisan matter. It is not. And the tone of our letter, though firm, is respectful. But it is unambiguous.
“I’d ask the speaker, look, get behind something,” said Rigell. ‘If not this letter, then something."
“I wouldn’t have said this a week ago," he said, "but I will say it now, and here with you, that I really do believe that given how the clock is ticking, based on what the administration is saying ... I think we’re at the point now of saying the House of Representatives should be called back into session because it is clear the president is moving in this direction.”
“That’s my view as one member of the House of Representatives,” said Rigell. “But we are at that point.”
Despite the concerns voiced not just by the American people ( who are astounding against fighting another War , in another foreign land - against people who have not threatened to harm the US ) but also voiced by Congress - as noted above , President Obama has spoken....
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-08-28/obama-concludes-assad-carried-out-chemical-attack
Obama "Concludes" That Assad Carried Out Chemical Attack
Submitted by Tyler Durden on 08/28/2013 18:15 -0400
One week after the fact, without the UN inspectors having completed their job, and without any actual evidence presented to the general public...
and more.....
http://hotair.com/archives/2013/08/28/obama-weve-concluded-that-syrian-army-conducted-chemical-weapon-attack/
Obama: We’ve “concluded” that Syrian army conducted chemical-weapon attack
POSTED AT 6:31 PM ON AUGUST 28, 2013 BY ED MORRISSEY
While the UK calls for a slowdown in the push to punish Bashar al-Assad for the use of chemical weapons in Syria, Barack Obama says that “we have concluded that the Syrian government in fact carried these [attacks] out.” The President told Gwen Ifill and Judy Woodruff that this conclusion requires consequences, and that a failure to punish this violation of “international norms” puts the security of the United States at risk:
It might not come as quickly as Obama wants, however. The Atlantic reports that the UK, America’s closest ally, wants to slow things down until David Cameron can give the UN a chance to say no:
The Obama administration’s plans to carry out a limited air strike against Syria may be delayed until Tuesday thanks to political opposition in the U.K. Parliament. How would British opposition to an American military action throw off the whole schedule? The U.S. and the U.K., according to aGuardian report, seem to be jointly pursuing support for a military strike. And while it looks like the president believes he has all the support he needs to move those plans forward, things have become more complicated in the U.K. Because of that, the U.S. is apparently giving Cameron a “lifeline” so he can quell an anticipated “revolt” in Parliament, as opposition to military action in Syria grows there.
That should give Obama a chance to ask Congress for approval, but don’t expect him to make the pitch. So far, Obama can’t even be bothered to provide proper consultation to the intel committees on Capitol Hill:
U.S. congressional intelligence committee leaders believe the Obama administration has not properly consulted them as the president engages in final deliberations for possible military action in Syria, according to congressional officials.One of the officials said the administration’s discussions with critical lawmakers, including Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Dianne Feinstein and her House counterpart, Mike Rogers, had been limited to “very brief status updates.”Another official said such talks had largely taken place over unclassified non-secure phone lines, making it difficult to discuss sensitive intelligence findings or details of the administration’s plans for a possible U.S. military response.
Golly, remember when liberals were so concerned about a rush to war and the conservative-imposed “imperial presidency”? Ed Schultz seems to have time-traveled back to that long-ago era:
Someone need to wake up Ed Van Winkel and remind him who’s been President for the last four-plus years.
Strange that the House is trying to slow Obama down, must just be for show, I'm sure they don't actually want to stop the war. I'm sure they don't care that our "proof" is no proof at all.
ReplyDeleteInteresting feel to the markets today,or for that matter the weather, the war, the population,etc. feels like something big is coming :) Not necessarily bad just big.
Hey Kev - Not only is the House trying to slow down Obama , but the Parliament in the UK has embarrassingly slowed down Cameron ! Is some sanity seeping in - hard to believe it , but just maybe !
ReplyDeleteToday seemed like a day of waiting - like on Fed Open market day when markets go on pause from about later morning until 2:15 when whatever news / decisions from the Fed come forth. Where some clarity was seen as coming Thursday , now with the UK revolt by the MPs against Cameron , it seems things will be unsettled - maybe through the weekend ! That was not the plan of the US/ UK or France - egg on their faces as they already told their Syrian rebel pals bombing would begin Th / Fri ! Best laid plans , right ?
Can't to wait what Obama and John Kerry indisputable evidence is on Thursday / Friday - or will that be put on hold to ? If the " evidence " is provide Th , that means everyone has until next week to dissect it !