(Drew Sheneman via GoComics.com)
Alex Pareene, at Salon:
John McCain got an earful at a recent town hall, because whenever John McCain actually shows up in his state people generally feel like yelling at him, but this time the angry Arizonans had a good point: Americans and Arizonans don’t particularly want to go to war in Syria, so why are so many people in the Senate about to vote to do that? And why did John McCain basically already vote to do this?
McCain was heckled and aggressively questioned at the Phoenix meeting. One man used marshmallows as a prop but most questioners had pretty straightforward arguments, like “we do not want another engagement in the Middle East.” John McCain promised that this would not be a real war, meaning a war in which Americans would be in any danger of dying in large numbers, but rather just the sort of minor, small-scale military action that will probably just kill a lot of Syrians. This did not seem to satisfy his critics. One of them had a particularly pointed, but sort of misdirected message:
“We didn’t send you to make war for us. We sent you to stop the war,” one man said to applause.
My question is this: Why would you send John McCain anywhere to stop a war? Anywhere besides “retirement,” I mean? Arizonans have been sending McCain to Washington (well, they haven’t been sending him there — he lives there — but they have been asking him to represent them in Congress) for a quarter-century now, or longer if you count his time in the House. In that time he hasn’t been consistent on much, but one thing he’s always been steadfastly in favor of is war. He’s never heard of a proposed military intervention he didn’t immediately support, or not support mainly because it wasn’t a big enough military intervention….
You can count on some Republicans to be purely opportunistic opponents of military invention — this president favors it, so now I am opposed — but that is never going to be the case with John McCain. If military action is on the table, John McCain is going to rattle a saber all over that table. If you’re tired of war, Arizona, just don’t vote John McCain anymore. (This also goes for Californians who dislike war and massive government surveillance programs but keep voting for Dianne Feinstein.)
The people at McCain’s town hall were not peacenik outliers. The majority of Americans are opposed to airstrikes in Syria. (Democrats oppose them more strongly than Republicans do, so thus far “liberal hypocrisy” on the issue is primarily limited to elected officials, as ever.) If President Obama loses a congressional vote and then doesn’t strike Syria, well, that might actually be a pretty politically popular move. But it would lead to John McCain and a chorus of Washington pundits calling him “weak.” Doing your best to reflect the will of the people, as represented either by polls or by the votes of popularly elected representatives, is always considered “weaker” than just doing hugely unpopular stuff because a couple of rich guys want you to….
Just Some Fuckhead, Thought Leader?
BLOOd oN MCcAINS hANDS
ruemara
Our drone strikes are illegal?
Chris
My uncle was giggling about this on his Facebook the other day – there’s a picture making the rounds of a hipster looking person with the words “I never realized how cool war could be until Obama had one.” Followed by the usual “ah HA! I have them now!” rant from Uncle about how there was no anti-war movement, just an anti-Bush movement.
So far, in my experience and that of the polls, opposition to intervention is widespread, not limited by party, and the DFHs he’s so butthurt about because they drew Bush with a Hitler mustache once have been pretty vocal against this one too. Here, in my Facebook minifeed, in public protests.
Chalk another one up for “it’s always projection with them.”
Baud
If Congress votes this down and Obama doesn’t strike, it’ll be interesting to see a before and after of teatard polling.
Yatsuno
Old man’s gotta get it up somehow. He’s got blonds to chase and Cindy’s about out of skin she can have plastic surgery on.
Well unless Grandpa retires, they’ll keep sending him back. You know John Sidney McCain III was a POW right?
sapient
@ruemara: Apparently it’s illegal to target a group of people (with surgical strike) against whom war has been declared in response to an attack on our country. (Armchair international lawyers have opined.)
LeftCoastTom
@sapient: Is California allowed to use drones against wildfires, or is that, too, a violation of the constitutional rights of hunters to start massive wildfires because stupidity?
srv
Republicans want to do the right thing, but Obama has made a hash at warmongering:
scav
They really do sometimes seem to confuse the cardboard cutout hand-models that are carefully deployed about campaign commercials as backdrops and baby-holders with the actual populace as a whole. Furthermore, don’t those people know they’re not behaving as the all-knowing theoretical strategists have opined as they well? Rabble. Jaysus, you can’t just get the good help anymore.
Schlemizel
Where were these fucking gland canyoners 10 years ago when it would have been possible to prevent the worst foreign policy debacle in US history?
BillinGlendaleCA
@Yatsuno: Reading the article, I was thinking that both Grandpa Walnuts and DiFi would probably not be in the Senate in 6 years time. But that would mean that JS McCain III(POW) wouldn’t be able to go on the Sunday gab fests anymore. I’m afraid that would be too much of a cost for the former POW.
lamh36
Was trying to watch something on my computer and I happened to turn on the TV and gosh darnit, now I’m watching Back To The Future!
Ok, call me stupid, but I never realized the day he went back in time was November 5th, 1955. And who just happened to be born on November 5th, 1976??? Me…LAMH36 (soon to be 37). Who knew?
I know, I know, just about EVERY crazy Back to the Future fanatic…lol!
Chris
Also,
I noticed that. Last time he was running he had a challenge from an angry teabagger, and Caribou Barbie had to go down and campaign for him to save his bacon.
WereBear
What a bunch of beanheads. They remind me of the battered women who have told me, “I don’t want him to change. I just want him to stop hitting me.”
Just Some Fuckhead, Thought Leader?
Might be to time to drop a few freedom bombs on Arizona if they are going to actively work to suppress the ambitions of Free Assyria.
Cacti
@ruemara:
If a cartoonist says so, it must be true.
Ben Franklin
@Schlemizel:
” when it would have been possible to prevent the worst foreign policy debacle in US history?”
Now imagine prog response had Gore been POTUS.
lamh36
Ben Jealous resigned as Chairman of the NAACP.
Benjamin Jealous Leaves the NAACP a Far Stronger Place
srv
Forward to your Uncle:
It’s all good to beat up on Gramps McCain, but it would seem we have a lot of warlovers on our own
LeftCoastTom
@WereBear: Actually, I’m pretty sure they did send him to make war, but just didn’t want the blah guy in charge.
But at least these folks still seem to know they can’t really say that.
Enhanced Voting Techniques
Because a Republican like Carolly Fiona would be ever so much better on this. Jesus Christ, is it really necessary for the anti war people to shut down their brains like this?
lamh36
Family’s long journey home after Katrina ends when city bulldozes house
sapient
@LeftCoastTom: Yikes – probably a violation of the Second Amendment! (says armchair Constitutional Lawyer).
Thanks for that link.
Yatsuno
@lamh36: I saw that. But why is he giving the standard “more time with my family” excuse? Granted, he’s done a great ton of work getting the NAACP back into a good footing, but leaving right before the huge fight for voting rights really gets serious seems oddsfish. He’s a young guy, and he has a great future in front of him no matter where he goes. Something just seems…off.
@Enhanced Voting Techniques: Dianne has had a long, colourful, productive career as a politician. But she could certainly be persuaded to step aside and allow another Dem to fill her shoes. I think she should give up the seat rather than be primaried personally, but the odds of losing that seat to a Repub in California are slim.
Cacti
The above cartoon is just the sort of thing I’d expect from AL, snarky but factually incorrect.
It’s a good companion piece to “nothing can be done about chemical weapons attacks, because food stamps.”
Ben Franklin
@srv:
Feingold the only NO. Feinschtein and Botoxer loves them some war creds.
LeftCoastTom
@Enhanced Voting Techniques: Carly ran against Boxer, who is one of the good ones. Feinstein’s most recent opponent was the waste-of-oxygen-grifter Elizabeth Emken. Otherwise known as “…M-who?”.
One of the…”options” in the primary was Orly Taitz, so really Emken was a step up.
Cacti
@Enhanced Voting Techniques:
John Kerry is a liar.
Trust the guy who poisons his political rivals.
Long Tooth
There is a simple way to avert the looming Constitutional crisis. Simply, the president should submit a proper Declaration of War to congress, per the Constitution. He should do it, and abide the vote.
The War Powers Act needs to be re-visited.
Should the upcoming congressional vote to wink-wink “sanction” a War on Syria be denied; and should Obama ignore it, and order aerial strikes on Syria in spite of it, as he claims as his Executive prerogative; he should, even must, be impeached.
Cacti
@Ben Franklin:
One wonders how Feingold lost his last election, being teh one troo democrat and all.
lojasmo
@ruemara:
no.
tc
@Ben Franklin:
Half the men in Congress have had some kind of plastic surgery, including McCain, but only the women get mocked for it. Well done, liberal dudes.
Cacti
@Long Tooth:
The emo prog/teabagger merger is nearly complete.
I shall call them Teaprogs.
Cacti
@tc:
Brogressives
Yatsuno
@Cacti:
It’s like Peak Wingnut: it can never be reached, only strived for.
LeftCoastTom
@Cacti: Boxer voted no on Iraq. Which tells us just how much “Ben Franklin” cares about the vote on Iraq (not at all).
sapient
@Cacti: Cacti, you are on fire!
Cassidy
@Cacti: Be careful. You’ll get your comments erased for having wrongthink and banned. Just don’t be mean to Special Timmeh. AL won’t abide by that.
Long Tooth
@Cacti: You may disagree with me, but I’m no T-Bagger.
Is it fair to assume, then, that you would oppose impeachment under those circumstances?
Off the top of your condescending pointed little head, why is that?
JordanRules
My fellow Arizonans were against it before they were for it and for it before they were against it. Just to cover their asses and make sure they aren’t supporting you know who.
Yatsuno
@Long Tooth: Three words: War. Powers. Act.
Ben Franklin
@LeftCoastTom:
Good on her. Let’s see some consistency on Syria.
srv
@Ben Franklin: Nope, moron. Boxter and others voted no.
58% of Democratic senators (29 of 50) voted for the resolution. Those voting against the Democratic majority include: Sens. Akaka (D-HI), Bingaman (D-NM), Boxer (D-CA), Byrd (D-WV), Conrad (D-ND), Corzine (D-NJ), Dayton (D-MN), Durbin (D-IL), Feingold (D-WI), Graham (D-FL), Inouye (D-HI), Kennedy (D-MA), Leahy (D-VT), Levin (D-MI), Mikulski (D-MD), Murray (D-WA), Reed (D-RI), Sarbanes (D-MD), Stabenow (D-MI), Wellstone (D-MN), and Wyden (D-OR).
Chafee and Jeffords were the others.
cathyx
I’m with Cacti. Anyone who disagrees with anything the president says or wants to do should be called traitor and tried for treason. Or at least be called a Teaprog.
fuckwit
The legend has it that LBJ was tired of some guy asking him over and over again why we were in Vietnam, so he unzipped his pants, took out his dick, leaned his hips forward to rest it on his desk, pointed at it, and said, “THIS is why we’re in Vietnam!”
Maybe one day we’ll have “leaders” who can put their fucking cocks back in their pants. And that includes, um… Feinstein?
Hmm… well maybe we’ll have more leaders without cocks at all, or the desire to act like they have them, and that’ll be better for all of us.
lamh36
@Yatsuno: seems that’s the story he’s sticking to
Ben Franklin
@tc
OMG. If I could find a retro-liberal male with the proper name for egalitarian abuse I would do so without hesitation, but I see the one-issue you vote on.
fka AWS
There are not enough palms or faces for the stupid shit that’s already showed up in this thread. And T&H hasn’t even dropped by yet.
fuckwit
@Cacti: The general term around here is Firebagger. Combination of FireDogLake and Teabaggers, dating back to the days when Jane Hamsher was in political alliance with Grover Norquist. I admired her when she started blogging, but I will never forgive her for that.
cathyx
@fuckwit: No. Feinstein has her g-string open for the money that the defense contractors are stuffing in it.
FlipYrWhig
@Long Tooth: Maybe it’s because, whether you/we like it or not, the president has authority over the US armed forces. I think it would be more consistent with the Constitution if Congress had a power that trumped his, but the Supreme Court has been loath to weigh in, and since both the executive and the legislative can reasonably claim authority, we’re at an impasse. In other words, for the president to use the authority of his office to override the judgment of Congress would be IMHO unsettling, but in no way illegal or impeachment-worthy, because it would in fact be consistent with dozens of presidential decisions over the centuries.
Mark S.
It’s a popular misconception. People on the receiving end of airstrikes admire us for our resolve, when they aren’t hating us for our freedom.
LeftCoastTom
@Ben Franklin: 1) You were responding to a comment about the Iraq vote. 2) Consistency with what? If you had any concern about the question at all then five seconds with Mr. Google could have told you why she doesn’t see the two votes the same, you’re free to disagree, but doing so has nothing to do with the Iraq comment to which you were nominally “replying”, and 3) You could not have possibly been thinking of Syria in your reply because you referenced Feingold’s “vote”, and he has no vote on Syria at all.
Anoniminous
@Yatsuno:
Also Congressional Resolution and, since US territory was attacked, there is a good case for drones being allowed under the UN Charter as well.
Whether they are a good idea is another topic.
Yatsuno
@lamh36: He did a shit ton of good in his short tenure, and I have a feeling we’ll be seeing more of him in the future. I’d personally love it if he decided to become a house dad, that would be a big change but a rewarding one for him.
rikyrah
More Than Half Of Teachers Report Buying Hungry Students Food With Their Own Money
Posted: 03/18/2010 5:12 am EDT | Updated: 08/15/2013 6:24 pm EDT
We often hear about U.S. teachers being paid poorly for all the work they do to educate children. But did you know that 63 percent of teachers report buying food for the classroom each month with their own money? That’s just one statistic from a report put out by Share Our Strength, which surveyed teachers across the country about hunger in America’s classrooms.
You can download the full Teachers report and learn more surprising facts about hungry kids and the teachers trying to help them at the Share Our Strength site.
Share Our Strength also interviewed two teachers in New York City about their personal experiences with students who have come to depend on them for enough food to get them through the day.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/23/more-than-half-of-teacher_n_368356.html
muddy
@Cacti: I wanted the “emo” portion to be in the word teaprog, but then I found it it said “teamO” in the middle of it, and so could not be used.
FlipYrWhig
@srv:
Kerry explained at the time, and was cuffed around for it, that while he was opposed to the decision to go into Iraq, he was in support of the president having the authority to make that decision. Now, it could have been 100% bullshit, but it’s logically consistent as a constitutional view — “I support the idea that the president has power to do this thing I personally abhor.” Think of the number of senators who support the idea of a filibuster but still don’t participate in every filibuster.
Ben Franklin
@LeftCoastTom:
Excellent autopsy, but the body of your work is still dead.
I am talking consistency, and I’m afraid to detail the specifics of that in each of the chosen Legislators cases, because that would lead to a very auspicious but unpopular conclusion.
Long Tooth
@Yatsuno: War Powers Act. You’re right, of course, and your point is unassailable.
Unassailable, except by the impeachment of a president of the United States. That would serve to bring Executive branch conceits to trial before Congress assembled. In that scenario, I would vote to impeach.
Socoolsofresh
Anywhere else and Cacti would be considered a troll. But not here, since his targets are considered the ‘right’ people to crudely mock. Meanwhile, say anything against the Democratic administration, then you are a MAJOR TROLL!
Mike in NC
Back in 2004, during the election, The Atlantic Monthly did a cover story on McCain, entitled “Why War is His Answer”. Probably not had to find it in their archives.
LeftCoastTom
@FlipYrWhig: I don’t buy that one. The Constitution specifically delegates to Congress the power to declare war. Since WW-II Congress has preferred to pass ‘resolutions’, “war powers act”s, and other such in place of declarations of war. But none of this supports then-Sen.-Kerry’s position – in fact, it seems to acknowledge that the power actually belongs to a Congress which doesn’t really want to exercise it.
FlipYrWhig
@Long Tooth: You would vote to impeach on something that was not a high crime? How does that work? It seems like one of those Scott Walker/Rick Perry things where you manipulate the rules to get your way come hell or high water.
LeftCoastTom
@Ben Franklin: OK, at this point your sentences don’t even parse.
sacrablue
@lamh36: Ha, my brother was born Nov 6, 1955.
MomSense
@rikyrah:
Our local food bank/soup kitchen set up a great program called backpack. We donate food (peanut butter is a good donation) to the food bank and they provide the food to the teachers of the students who get school lunch assistance. On Fridays the teachers put the food into their backpacks before they leave school so they have something to eat over the weekend.
Of course we can’t keep up with the need and if we had a Congress that gave a crap about human beings they would spend some money on food assistance and pass the jobs bill.
lamh36
I’m sure I’m not the only one, but whenever I watch Back To The Future, I always have this rock n roll classic stuck in my head!
Chuck Berry – Johnny B Goode
Ben Franklin
@LeftCoastTom:
That’s only because I assumed you were capable of actually having a discussion. That one’s on me.
FlipYrWhig
@LeftCoastTom: I didn’t say I agreed with Kerry’s view, but that was his explanation, and it’s internally consistent: as a matter of inter-branch dynamics, he believes it’s the president’s call. You don’t. I don’t. But someone might — especially someone who wants to be president, or someone who has a more deeply-held view of the meta-issues of Constitutional theory than on a particular armed conflict.
The Constitution has a seam between the “power to declare war” stuff and the “commander-in-chief of the armed forces” stuff, and while IANAL, my understanding is that it’s never been adjudicated either way. I think it’s supposed to be Congress’s power, but it’s not settled, so it’s not, as they say, a slam dunk.
fuckwit
Also, this this this a thousand times this http://www.strikemag.org/bullshit-jobs/
Xecky Gilchrist
Ahhh… been a while since BBBUT DR0NZ!
rikyrah
An Ugly Rape Case Involving Vanderbilt’s Football Team Could Get Much Uglier
This summer, five football players at the elite Southern school were arrested in association with the rape of an undergraduate. The events of the night in question are even more unsettling than had been previously reported. posted on September 7, 2013 at 12:05pm EDT
It began with a broken door. On the second floor of the Gillette House dorm at Vanderbilt University, a door had been knocked off its hinges and bent in the middle as if it had been kicked open, seemingly the kind of run-of-the-mill collateral damage that results from drunken hijinks on campuses all over the country. But officials reviewing security footage from the night the door was broken saw something suspicious, even sinister. Multiple men went in and out of one particular dorm room. Then Brandon Vandenburg, a highly rated tight end who’d just transferred to Vanderbilt’s football team from junior college, emerged and threw a towel over the hallway camera, and it went dark.
What officials eventually discovered about the events of that night would lead to the indictment of four football players for rape and another for alleged involvement in a cover-up. The players in question were swiftly dismissed or suspended, and the case has gotten relatively little attention despite the elite Southern university’s enormous local prominence and its football team’s status as an up-and-coming member of the country’s highest-profile conference. But many disturbing details about the alleged crimes — including what is described as a racially charged video and an allegation that Vanderbilt coach James Franklin told a player to delete footage of the incident, which he strongly denies — have not been reported until now. The following is an account of the night and its aftermath based on two dozen interviews with students, attorneys, and others with direct knowledge of the night and the ongoing investigation.
http://www.buzzfeed.com/bobbyallyn/an-ugly-rape-case-involving-vanderbilts-football-team-could
Anne Laurie
@ruemara:
According to the guy saying that in the cartoon (Putin), yes. President Obama does not agree with Putin. But they are disagreeing ‘cordially’, which is why it is a “Tepid War”, with handshakes instead of UN threats.
LeftCoastTom
@FlipYrWhig: As I’ve understood it as a non-lawyer, a reasonably constituted Supreme Court would stay out of a question like this, leaving it to the political branches to solve amongst themselves (along those lines I contacted Feinstein’s office in what I knew was a vain complaint over her opposition to the ‘defund the war’ effort).
Given the Supreme Court we have today, I’m sure there’s some Strict Constructionalist reading of the constitution today, that can easily be overturned by some Textualist reading of the same document tomorrow, should the need arise.
TAPX486
McCain is now starting down the impeachment road. The wing nuts have been flogging this hobby horse for 5 years and now they think they might have something. Just vote no on the resolution and when Obama orders an attack anyway file articles of impeachment. I guess if I had to vote in Congress I would vote for the resolution. Not because I think it will make a bloody bit of difference in Syria but to short circuit the impeachment crusade. It would be very much a hold your nose and then take a long shower after kind of vote.
Long Tooth
Which branch of government can better judge the reasonable expectations of the spirit of a War Powers Act, than does the branch in which it was created, and in whose hands the Constitution makes crystal clear such power resides?
You might argue it’s the Executive. I would disagree.
Suzanne
Douchebag. John McCain never met a war that didn’t give him an insta-boner. If we didn’t strike now, he’d end up with balls so blue we could see them from space.
Having said that, I find it interesting that of my friend group, the people who oppose Syria the most vehemently are those that supported Iraq most vehemently. I can understand the belief that American intervention is a bad idea because we cannot do anything to make the situation better (in fact, I may share that view), but I can’t understand any sort of thinking that leads one to conclude that invading Iraq under false pretenses was awesome, but limited attacks on Syria in order to deter the use of NBCs is the worst thing EVAR.
lojasmo
@Long Tooth:
I’ll play.
Any questions?
muddy
@lojasmo: He’s long in the tooth, not long in the google-fu.
lojasmo
@Long Tooth:
You should read the act. You would then realize how wrongheaded your position is.
I quoted a bit o a summary for you with highlights. You should check it.
Ben Franklin
Just so that we’re clear. Cole may soon ban me so I will say an early farewell. Last time ( 6/13) was for, as I recall: “rampant douchebaggery” because he couldn’t find a rule to fit the circumstance. Just so we’re clear.
LeftCoastTom
@lojasmo: I’ll play.
If the armed forces are periodic missiles launched from a ship located in international waters, then maybe those forces haven’t been “remaining for more than 60 days”?
So…he could have gone ahead and attacked Syria, then “notif[ied]” Congress once Boehner’s hangover cleared up, then…?
(I think any air attack not in immediate self defense is reasonably construed as an act of war, and even a “limited” attack however justified needs to consider “what-if” scenarios since any target of an act of war just might choose to respond…the wording you bolded just seems stuck in the age in which it was written (1970s, written in response to a decades-long useless ground war))
Belafon
@TAPX486: Because, you know, if there is another attack, especially here, they’ll try for impeachment on the grounds that he didn’t protect the country. It would fail miserably, because most American’s wouldn’t buy it, but if the Republicans were paying attention to most Americans we wouldn’t be in the precarious shape financially.
Anne Laurie
@TAPX486:
How about “you” vote no, the resolution fails, and President Obama doesn’t send off the missles? The farther right of the Repub Party would probably still call for impeachment proceedings, but it’s hard to gin up a legal excuse to indict for not disregarding the will of the voting majority, and we’d have the great advantage of not sticking our troops into another Middle East fustercluck!
Kay
@TAPX486:
It’s ridiculous, though. They say “impeachment” constantly. They were telling audiences immediately prior to this that they would impeach over appointments to the NLRB and delaying the employer mandate in the PPACA. Before that it was the IRS.
You can’t say it once a week for a year and just switch out the charge(s). It becomes all but meaningless.
IowaOldLady
I see Peter King is the first to climb into the 2016 Republican Clown Car. I distinctly heard him call “Shot gun!”
scav
@rikyrah: Ahh, more godly individuals on foolball teams. Charming coach too. At least this one’s got a court case and apparent penalties, although the usual PR cone of silence is still desperately attempting to assert its iron control.
Lady Bug
@Suzanne:
I think that this has something to do with over thinking the lessons of the previous war, especially as something as shattering as the Iraq War.
We were reluctant to enter Bosnia in part because of Vietnam. We were reluctant to intervene in Rwanda because of Somalia. We intervened in Kosovo, in part I think, to make up for Rwanda and Bosnia, even though Kosovo, as horrible as it was did not reach the death toll of either Bosnia or Rwanda.
This is not to say that we shouldn’t learn lessons from previous interventions, and non interventions. I don’t think being more skeptical about the use of American military power is necessarily a bad thing, it becomes more troubling, IMHO, when there is a move to knee-jerk interventionism or knee-jerk isolationism.
I talk about over learning the lessons of the previous war, because I do think that Iraq has cast a huge shadow over the Syrian debate, but over learning the lessons of previous wars, doesn’t just apply to Iraq. When I see Syria and the arguments for intervening / non intervention, I see many of the exact same arguments that were made about Bosnia. Just as some people look at Syria and see Iraq, others see Bosnia, or Iraq-1980-1988, or any other conflict you can think of.
It is a tough decision, IMO, and there are risks involved in both choices (and not intervening is a choice just as much as intervening) it is not a decision that can be made lightly. At this point, I actually favor the 45 day compromise resolution, it gives Syria 45 days to get rid of the chemical weapons, the administration 45 days to create a more comprehensive plan on Syria and 45 days to get more support for intervention, and if Assad doesn’t get rid of his chemical weapons and hopefully there will be more international support for intervention, than a very tailored, pinpoint strike on Syrian rocket & missile launching equipment.
FlipYrWhig
@lojasmo: Long’s hypothetical may have been the president seeing the AUMF voted down, using military force anyway, then defying the terms of the War Powers Resolution. Would that be impeachable? I would still say no because the president would have a built-in defense: his inherent authority as c-i-c trumps anything passed by Congress to thwart it, IOW, the War Powers Act is itself unconstitutional. I’d like to see the Supreme Court knock that down, but they haven’t yet, and as a result violating the War Powers Act wouldn’t be an impeachable illegality.
FlipYrWhig
@Anne Laurie:
FWIW, this is what I expect to happen.
ETA: And what I believe Senator Obama and law lecturer Obama would _want_ to happen.
Belafon
@LeftCoastTom: We had missiles back then as well, but yes, the WPA was designed to constrain the president as much as anything, and with any good law, someone will eventually find the hole (I don’t necessarily consider that a bad thing, see Obama allowing the IRS to recognizes gay marriages for tax purposes).
I also think that the WPA keeps Congress from having to do its job. And I think this Congress likes being able to complain without having to do any actual work.
ChrisNYC
Ftr Putin thinks drones are a very efficient means of warfare per his recent RT interview. He’s pro drone.
FlipYrWhig
@Lady Bug:
The further advantage of something like this would be the precedent of having the Congress come to a consensus about how the US military should be used, rather than having Congress be an afterthought or a backseat driver to a decision made by the president. And that, I think, would be _extremely_ important. It’s kind of how the American government is supposed to work!
Long Tooth
@lojasmo: I re-read that Act recently. Could well be I missed something.
But if congress assembled has preemptively declared its disfavor to a particular war, how can it possibly rise to being declared a national emergency by an individual, i.e. the POTUS? FDR would have certainly had an easier time of it, if he thought he could get away with selling that.
Lobbing bombs into Syria would constitute a act of war, don’t you think? If not, we’re talking past each other.
Anne Laurie
@FlipYrWhig: From your mouth to
NSA’sthe FSM’s ears!sapient
@ChrisNYC: cite?
Ben Franklin
@FlipYrWhig:
“FWIW, this is what I expect to happen.”
Of course it is. If this weren’t the design I’ll eat your whig. If he meant to usurp he would have done it under WPA, and utilized the 90 days. C’mon. This isn’t 3-D chess.
Lady Bug
@FlipYrWhig:
Furthermore, it would continue to raise the issues of the importance of the chemical weapons issue. Since Putin claims that the rebels launched the attack, he should be particularly driven to make sure chemical weapons are out of Syria.
My “dream” scenario in this horrible, fucked up international tragedy is that the UN will be able to go into Syria and the chemical weapons supply will be destroyed. We save lives from further chemical weapons attack, we don’t have to launch any missiles and we can focus on possibly ending the civil war and going through a peace process.
Really this idea of destroying Syria’s chemical weapons stockade is in everyone’s best interest, even Assad and Putin’s.
Patricia Kayden
“But it would lead to John McCain and a chorus of Washington pundits calling him ‘weak.'”
That would be alright. We’d all survive and life would go on as usual.
Omnes Omnibus
@Patricia Kayden:
Like that won’t happen no matter what he does on any issue.
AxelFoley
@cathyx:
Careful, your PUMA is showing.
Lady Bug
@FlipYrWhig:
Not that I don’t want that to happen as you said, but here’s my question, how would PBO argue that a missile launch at Syrian military sites is in the national interest/necessary as the administration has been arguing quite intensely over the past week and then say, congress says no, “meh, nevermind.” I mean, how would that square over?
IMVHO the reason why the Admin is pushing this so hard is because they don’t want to launch any attacks without Congressional approval, but Obama made it clear, at least how I interpreted it, in the Rose Garden speech that he’s already decided to respond militarily. I do agree with you that Obama the constitutional lawyer and scholar wouldn’t want to launch any missiles without congressional approval. I don’t think he wants to ignore the vote at the same time he already decided how to respond, which is why they have been trying so hard to get support.
The ironic thing is, and of course we would never know in hindsight, but if the military had just launched a few missiles at Assad’s weapons capabilities (a la Clinton and Iraq) we would probably not be hearing this much talk about Syria today. This doesn’t mean I don’t support going to congress of course.
I do think Obama is in a damned if he does, damned if he doesn’t trap over Syria.
FlipYrWhig
@Patricia Kayden: That’s bound to happen, but I think a big speech about how it’s the genius of the American constitutional system to put these things before the legislature and come to a resolution, and for the president to abide by it, would go a long way towards dulling that particular knife’s edge. I know I’m an Obot, but I really think this is what he thinks deep down, and what he’s hoping to do here, especially in light of Libya, which was probably the right thing to do in terms of the human toll but the wrong thing to do vis-a-vis the balance of powers of the US government.
TAPX486
@Anne Laurie: If I was sure that Obama would not send off the missiles, then the vote is an easy NO. I would like to think this is 12 level chess where Obama get Congress to vote no and then he can walk away and say I tried. I’m just not sure that is the game he is playing. If he rally does intend to strike then I would prefer to minimize the domestic damage to just loud screaming and yelling on the talk shows rather than another impeachment crisis. This would be the second democratic president impeached by the GOP and they might get to like the process and resort to it whenever they lose a presidential election.. I realize they will still have a democratic VP now elevated to president but it is certainly a good way to cripple the functioning of the executive branch.
Then again maybe I”M playing 12 leve3l chess:-) (sigh)
FlipYrWhig
@Lady Bug:
I think he could simply say that it remains his opinion that the US should act, but the other branch of the government has a coeval role to play as well, and they’ve made their determination, so he’ll abide by it even though he disagrees deeply with it.
Long Tooth
@muddy: I want to see the War Powers Act eviscerated. Fears unleashed by the atomic age have been played by each party to progressively enhance their own power, by enabling the Executive branch a role in war making disavowed by the Constitution. By my lights, it’s time we got back to basics. If a POTUS wants war, a POTUS should call upon congress, and submit a declaration of war.
A Humble Lurker
@Anne Laurie:
…..What?
TAPX486
@Long Tooth: In the 200+ year history of the republic there have only been 11 congressional declarations of war, and 8 of those involved multiple countries in WWI and WWII. There have been numerous congressional resolutions and reports by the president to congress of actions taken. Even a cursory review show that the US military was committed to action many more times than the 11 declarations. So I’m not sure there is a ‘basics’ to get back to. Even Jefferson only asked for an AUMF-like approval for his attack on the Barbary pirates and not a declaration of war .
Cacti
@AxelFoley:
Cognitive dissonance:
When a bitter Hillary supporter hates the inadequate black man for favoring an intervention in Syria that SoS Clinton wanted long ago.
Ted & Hellen
Could you explain why you believe Obama to be “inadequate black man?”
What does his color/race have to do with the inadequacies you perceive in him?
Seems kind of racist…
Tim in SF
Primary challenges against our zombie Senator Feinstein never seem to go anywhere. It’s continually frustrating. That leaves us with a choice of the loathsome Feinstein, or the totally unacceptable choice of a Republican.
No thanks.
brantl
I guess I don’t buy the “two rich guys” shit. I also don’t have a problem with our president trying to back up war crimes mandates, instead of being on the wrong side of them, as G.W. Douche was.
Jockey Full of Malbec
And I bet every single one of these folks made sure to buy a car that gets more than 40mpg on the highway, so they’d get their wish!
Rex Everything
@fuckwit:
Yeah, she allied w/ Norquist over the lender bailout & it’s unforgivable. You guys are allying with John McCain and Lindsay Graham over a fucking war and it’s just good sense.