With quite a few Congressmen still undecided on the Obama Administration’s request for authorization to attack Syria, some of those on the bubble are pushing to trim back the scope of the resolution as a compromise.
That’s because while President Obama and officials have repeatedly pushed the attack as a very limited punitive action with no greater ambitions for long-term involvement, the resolution itself grants unlimited, open-ended authorization for Obama to be involved militarily in Syria as he sees fit.
With broad public opposition to the resolution, it faces a very uphill battle to sell the war to Congress, and putting limits on it might convince enough Congressmen that the war is a minor enough deal that they can sign off without fear of electoral repercussions. The administration has said they would favor some revisions to the resolution.
But the bigger question is whether the wording really matters that much, and whether rewriting it will really limit a president who repeatedly claims he’s free to attack Syria whenever he wants with or without Congress, or whether once given a “limited” authorization he would do as he did with the UN resolution on Libya and re-imagine it as he sees fit.
4 thoughts on “Congress Seeks to Narrow Obama’s Syrian War Resolution”
This Administration has provided ample proof that they are going to do whatever they please, regardless of who is opposed, be it Congress of the majority of the American people. The administration has done little positive to make its case for another involvement in affairs that should not be our concern. Regardless of the reasons they finally come up with they will never get my support. If those Congresscritters unsure of their support only ask themselves how will the Congress pay for another endless fiasco. They should consider how the money being used for war making in the ME (as well as the military "aid" being provided to Israel and others in the region) – estimated at billions of taxpayer dollars – could better be used in fixing our own problems in our own country. And if they vote NO and Obama and crew proceed anyway, impeach the lot of them and then start war crimes trials for everyone who has had their hands in starting and continuing the wars.
administration has said they would favor some revisions to the resolution. lol. So who ghost wrote it for 'em? Who peppered it with crap they didn't need? Or maybe the point of it is to make the proposal so absurd that 'revisions' feel to some like a fight won vicariously.
Your last sentence was what I was also thinking. Most members of Congress recall too many times that the past Administrations have conned them; everything from foreign attacks to the Patriot Act. A survey at NewsMax has 82% against any intervention, even if chemical weapons were used. It appears more Republicans than Democrats are opposed to an attack. This should not be a partisan issue.
From a younger military man about 10 years ago: "finally figured it out. They jam a red hot stick twenty inches up your …, pull it out an inch, then call that you're 'Good Deal.'" Kinda like "am I not merciful?" Interesting that he put it as a hard-won-revelation.
Isn't the Patriot act an iterated secret session rubberstamp? I would hope you're right that most of them remember, though maybe the partisan component contradicts that? Aint just children that learn by example. If it can be unconsciously inferred that congress forgets then others will too. 51% of 'right' is that 'we' already dunnit.
Comments are closed.