hjoseph Wrote:
Aug 30, 2013 12:44 PM
The War Powers Act of 1996 is very clear and does not need a Supreme Court clarification. The President can only bypass Congress when the threat of attack to the homeland is imminent. There is a short period of time specified for notifying Congress if that eventuality has occurred. If you want to make a big reach by saying the chemical weapons in Syria are an imminent threat to the USA then consider that ASSAD supports Hezbollah terrorist and the Iranian regime that is building nukes. On the other hand the rebels are top heavy with Al Qeada fighers and the Muslim brotherhood. The use of chemicals that killed women and children by the hundreds is horrific and if ASSAD is responsible he should be captured and tried as a war criminal, but the truth is that our two biggest terrorist threat enemies are killing each other, why would you want to intervene at the expense of our blood and treasure for a culture where both sides hate us and the radicals who emerge on top could eventually drag us into a world war III. To do anything militarily would be at best political cover to protect the Obama blunders that could have kept this problem from surfacing if engagement was two or more years ago. There are 7 billion people on the planet, we don't have the resources to right every wrong. Four Americans were murdered under Obama's watch in Bhengazi Libya because according to the state department's Hillary Clinton and Leon Panetta we didn't have the resources available to protect our people. Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts were voted on and approved by Congress, so I don't know which GOP administartions after 1996 engaged in nonsensical warfare that was not an imminent threat. One last thing to consider before trying to ease your conscience is that Syria and Iran would most likely retaliate against Irael so we open the door for nuclear war in the middle east and at the least chemical weapon attacks. The only way to protect any interest we may have in Syria is to secure the chemical weapons and that would require a large invasion of troops on the ground, loss of life, massive amounts of funds, loss of cooperation by Russia and China militarily and economically and another Iraq. The Brits have already voted down involvement in the Syrian civil war. We would have to depend on France to share military engagement, how comforting is that.