# Has John McCain Lost His Mind? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 28, 2013, 6:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-john-mccain-lost-his-mind/659524 "2013-05-28T06:02:06Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Frank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Frank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frank)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2013, 3:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-john-mccain-lost-his-mind/659524/21 "2013-05-28T15:11:36Z")
> [@Randvek](#): > > McCain has been around a long time. Syria’s Assad has been around a long time, too. McCain doesn’t trust Russia, and you can be damn sure he remembers Assad siding with the Soviets. Not the same Assad. > [@](#): > > And if we catch Syria in the act of using chemical weapons? What if we catch the [rebels](http://www.csmonitor.com/World/terrorism-security/2013/0506/UN-investigator-suggests-it-was-Syria-s-rebels-who-used-chemical-weapons) using chemical weapons? > [@](#): > > Israel and Syria? Well, I don’t even need to say that one. No, you don’t. The US, NATO, et al., have not been involved in any of the numerous conflicts between Israel and Syria, and are unlikely to start now. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2013, 3:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-john-mccain-lost-his-mind/659524/22 "2013-05-28T15:13:13Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > The President really can’t do much damage on their own in our system. They need Congress to declare war… They can do a lot without a declaration of war. ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2013, 3:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-john-mccain-lost-his-mind/659524/23 "2013-05-28T15:17:15Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > Heh-heh! Good one! 😛 > [@John Mace](#): > > They can do a lot without a declaration of war. Relative to what, though? Sure, they can commit forces for up to 60 days, but that’s pretty weak sauce compared to the powers of other heads of state. Having a dolt or a loon for a president is hardly ideal, of course, but they can do less damage to the nation under our system than just about any other one. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2013, 3:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-john-mccain-lost-his-mind/659524/24 "2013-05-28T15:28:11Z")
Congresscritters go on fact finding missions overseas all the time. How is this any different from dozens of other trips made by members of both parties? Still waiting for the cite on the al Qaeda thingy. **Human Action** : Congress rarely limits the president in his use of the armed forces. Witness Korea, Vietnam, Iraq. And we had Clinton’s bombing of Serbia as a nice little morsel, too. ---
**Author:** ![GomiBoy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/b2d939/32.png) [@GomiBoy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GomiBoy)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2013, 3:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-john-mccain-lost-his-mind/659524/25 "2013-05-28T15:34:21Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > Relative to what, though? Sure, they can commit forces for up to 60 days, but that’s pretty weak sauce compared to the powers of other heads of state. Having a dolt or a loon for a president is hardly ideal, of course, but they can do less damage to the nation under our system than just about any other one. I don’t seem to recall a declaration of war against Afghanistan in 2003, or Iraq in 2003 for that matter. Of course Congress approved the use of Force and continues to approve budgets, so it’s a bit muddy, but there was no Declaration of War. Same thing with Korea and Vietnam. The international standing of the President is lots higher than the internal one, leaving all the wingnuts blaming Obama for everything they think is wrong with the country aside. POTUS is the highest representative of the US on the international stage and based on the unrestrained hilarity with which at least the British press regarded Palin when she was running for VPOTUS, it would have been fun to watch from a long ways away. ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2013, 3:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-john-mccain-lost-his-mind/659524/26 "2013-05-28T15:55:03Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > **Human Action** : Congress rarely limits the president in his use of the armed forces. Witness Korea, Vietnam, Iraq. And we had Clinton’s bombing of Serbia as a nice little morsel, too. Korea was a UNSC resolution. Vietnam had the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution. Iraq had an AUMF. None exemplify the President acting on his own. Clinton’s bombing(s) does, that’s the sort of thing the President can do on his own authority, and it’s not all that much. ETA: Actually, no, Clinton was acting under an UNSC resolution. > [@GomiBoy](#): > > I don’t seem to recall a declaration of war against Afghanistan in 2003, or Iraq in 2003 for that matter. Of course Congress approved the use of Force and continues to approve budgets, so it’s a bit muddy, but there was no Declaration of War. Same thing with Korea and Vietnam. If you read the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution, [you’ll see:](http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Authorization_for_Use_of_Military_Force_Against_Iraq_Resolution_of_2002) > [@](#): > > (c) War Powers Resolution Requirements.— > (1) Specific statutory authorization.— Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution. And in the [Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists:](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorization_for_Use_of_Military_Force_Against_Terrorists) > [@](#): > > (b) War Powers Resolution Requirements- > (1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution. And in the [Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 1991](http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Authorization_for_Use_of_Military_Force_Against_Iraq_Resolution_of_1991): > [@](#): > > (c) War Powers Resolution Requirements.— > (1) Specific Statutory Authorization.— Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution. The War Powers Resolution requires _either_ an authorization for the use of force, or a declaration of war. ---
**Author:** ![GomiBoy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/b2d939/32.png) [@GomiBoy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GomiBoy)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2013, 4:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-john-mccain-lost-his-mind/659524/27 "2013-05-28T16:02:24Z")
I’m not saying any were unsupported by Congress, as they clearly were, just that none were a formal ‘declaration of War’. As I understand it, an AUMF is Congress supporting the Executive who’s already decided to f\*\*\* somebody up. A Declaration of War is Congress _telling_ the Exec to go f\*\*\* somebody up. > [@Human\_Action](#): > > [Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 1991](http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Authorization_for_Use_of_Military_Force_Against_Iraq_Resolution_of_1991): Nitpick: The AUMF for Iraq and Afghanistan in 2003 were one and the same; you’re citing the one for the Gulf War 1 /Nitpick ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2013, 4:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-john-mccain-lost-his-mind/659524/28 "2013-05-28T16:20:34Z")
> [@GomiBoy](#): > > I’m not saying any were unsupported by Congress, as they clearly were, just that none were a formal ‘declaration of War’. > > As I understand it, an AUMF is Congress supporting the Executive who’s already decided to f\*\*\* somebody up. A Declaration of War is Congress _telling_ the Exec to go f\*\*\* somebody up. Unless you can point to times where Congress declared war when the President was reluctant to fight, that’s a distinction without a difference. As the President is commander-in-chief of the armed forces, a declaration of war by Congress cannot force the President to deploy the nation’s armed forces. > [@GomiBoy](#): > > Nitpick: > The AUMF for Iraq and Afghanistan in 2003 were one and the same; you’re citing the one for the Gulf War 1 > /Nitpick I linked to three: the 2002 Iraq resolution; the 2001 terrorist resolution which was used to justify the invasion of Afghanistan; and just for throughness, the 1991 Iraq resolution, since all three demonstrate the explicit authorization of Congress under the War Powers Resolution. ---
**Author:** ![GomiBoy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/b2d939/32.png) [@GomiBoy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GomiBoy)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2013, 4:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-john-mccain-lost-his-mind/659524/29 "2013-05-28T16:32:12Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > Unless you can point to times where Congress declared war when the President was reluctant to fight, that’s a distinction without a difference. As the President is commander-in-chief of the armed forces, a declaration of war by Congress cannot force the President to deploy the nation’s armed forces. Not one where Congress told the Exec to fight when they weren’t willing, but one from the other side - Vietnam. The argument is that the AUMF for Vietnam was mistakenly given without a time limit, and Congress would really have rather gotten out of there sooner than 10 years on but couldn’t because the AUMF wasn’t time-constrained. Much like the AUMF in 2003 - basically granting eternal war authorization against a tactic (‘terrorism’) rather than a nation-state or organisation that can actually be, you know, defeated? > [@](#): > > I linked to three: the 2002 Iraq resolution; the 2001 terrorist resolution which was used to justify the invasion of Afghanistan; and just for throughness, the 1991 Iraq resolution, since all three demonstrate the explicit authorization of Congress under the War Powers Resolution. I saw that, thanks for explaining. I thought you had identified the 1991 AUMF as the 2003 justification for Iraq. My apologies. ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2013, 4:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-john-mccain-lost-his-mind/659524/30 "2013-05-28T16:40:04Z")
> [@GomiBoy](#): > > Not one where Congress told the Exec to fight when they weren’t willing, but one from the other side - Vietnam. The argument is that the AUMF for Vietnam was mistakenly given without a time limit, and Congress would really have rather gotten out of there sooner than 10 years on but couldn’t because the AUMF wasn’t time-constrained. Much like the AUMF in 2003 - basically granting eternal war authorization against a tactic (‘terrorism’) rather than a nation-state or organisation that can actually be, you know, defeated? An AUMF is just like any other law, it can be repealed by Congress at any time. If Congress wanted out of the war, they could have gotten out. The terrorist AUMF was from 2001, also, not 2003, and it’s more narrow than you make it out to be: > [@](#): > > (a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons. So, not any and all users of the tactic of terrorism, but those who carried out 9/11, and/or harbored those who did (ie, Afghanistan). > [@GomiBoy](#): > > I saw that, thanks for explaining. I thought you had identified the 1991 AUMF as the 2003 justification for Iraq. My apologies. No problem, glad we’re clear. ---
**Author:** ![Ludovic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7ab992/32.png) [@Ludovic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ludovic)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2013, 4:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-john-mccain-lost-his-mind/659524/31 "2013-05-28T16:46:50Z")
> [@Dana\_Scully](#): > > John McCain is a senile old fool. Thank God he didn’t get elected president. What if he’d been forced our of office by illness or death? Can you imagine Sarah Palin as president? :eek: eeeeeeeeeeeeeek! At least Sarah was smart enough to run with someone who would never pal around with terrorists. ---
**Author:** ![Chefguy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chefguy/32/138_2.png) [@Chefguy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chefguy)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2013, 4:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-john-mccain-lost-his-mind/659524/32 "2013-05-28T16:50:24Z")
This is not a debate point, just an opinion: McCain has never gotten over his failure to make it into the White House. It’s made him bitter and angry. So he appears on every Sunday talk show and pulls grandstand stunts like this in order to delude himself into thinking that he is more important than he is, and that it’s really he who is the voice of the nation. Meanwhile, most people just wish he would go away. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2013, 4:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-john-mccain-lost-his-mind/659524/33 "2013-05-28T16:53:22Z")
Um, how is this different from the way McCain has behaved his whole career? He’s always been a fixture of Sunday talk shows, and he’s always played a big role in conducting foreign policy. Senators have the right to play this role and have done so ever since the US took on a global role. He also warned weeks ago that this war could destabilize Lebanon. That has started to happen now, with Hezbollah’s interference in the Syrian war now being out in the open. So yeah, we shouldn’t get involved, just so long as you’re cool with the Middle East descending into chaos, and so long as you accept responsibility for the decision to allow that to happen. ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2013, 5:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-john-mccain-lost-his-mind/659524/34 "2013-05-28T17:01:14Z")
The Senate has foreign-policy powers: it ratifies treaties, declares war (with the House), and confirms the appointment of ambassadors. So, I don’t think this can be framed as McCain doing someone else’s job, being informed of the facts on the ground and trying to influence his fellow Senators is his job. There’s no requirement, nor should there be one, that Senators must be passive observers of whatever the Secretary of State gets up to. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2013, 5:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-john-mccain-lost-his-mind/659524/35 "2013-05-28T17:04:23Z")
Basically, ANY American can go on a fact-finding mission, they just can’t legally conduct diplomacy. Heck, Sean Penn and Beyonce do that. And Dennis Rodman, although the less said about that the better. ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2013, 5:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-john-mccain-lost-his-mind/659524/36 "2013-05-28T17:05:20Z")
Also, it should be noted that McCain is on the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, giving him a particular interest in these matters. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2013, 5:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-john-mccain-lost-his-mind/659524/37 "2013-05-28T17:10:05Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > Korea was a UNSC resolution. Vietnam had the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution. Iraq had an AUMF. None exemplify the President acting on his own. > > Clinton’s bombing(s) does, that’s the sort of thing the President can do on his own authority, and it’s not all that much. > > ETA: Actually, no, Clinton was acting under an UNSC resolution. Got a cite for Russia and China saying to was OK to bomb Serbia? You’re probably thinking of NATO. ---
**Author:** ![WillFarnaby](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/willfarnaby/32/514_2.png) [@WillFarnaby](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WillFarnaby)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2013, 5:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-john-mccain-lost-his-mind/659524/38 "2013-05-28T17:11:15Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Still waiting for the cite on the al Qaeda thingy. The group affiliated with al qaida is the [Al-Nusra Front](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Nusra_Front). > [@](#): > > The Al-Nusra Front or Jabhat al-Nusra… is an Al Qaida associate operating in Syria. The group announced its creation on 23 January 2012 during the Syrian civil war.[8] It is described as “the most aggressive and successful arm of the rebel force”.[3] The group was designated by the United States as a terrorist organisation in December 2012.[9] In April 2013, the leader of the Islamic state of Iraq released an audio statement announcing that Jabhat al-Nusra is its branch in Syria.[6] The leader of Al Nusra, Abu Mohammad al-Golani, denied the merger but affirmed their allegiance to Al-Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri.[4] In May 2013, a faction of Jabhat emerged in the east of Syria operating under the name of the “Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham” [10][11] Mccain is meeting with the [leader of a group who works closely with a group who works closely with a group who is affiliated with Al Qaida](http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/05/07/190602/syrian-rebel-leader-salim-idriss.html#.UaOoDes8w4Q) > [@](#): > > Idriss said his group didn’t work with al Qaida-affiliated rebels who belonged to the Nusra Front. But he said the military councils worked closely with another Islamist rebel faction, Arhar al Sham, that’s known to coordinate its actions with Nusra and shares many of Nusra’s beliefs about how Syria should be governed if Assad is vanquished. Now you may say that the link between Mccain and real deal terrorists is spurious at best, but what happens if Mccains favored group wins the war? They will have to deal with these other groups who were “most effective” in fighting Assad with them. Even if Mccain’s boys win it will be a shitstorm in Syria. So to answer the OP, Yes Mccain has lost what mind he had. > [@](#): > > **Human Action** : Congress rarely limits the president in his use of the armed forces. Witness Korea, Vietnam, Iraq. And we had Clinton’s bombing of Serbia as a nice little morsel, too. Obama in Libya too. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2013, 5:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-john-mccain-lost-his-mind/659524/39 "2013-05-28T17:14:09Z")
It’s Hezollah vs. Al Qaeda. There’s no good side here, but I think Hezbollah is the greater threat. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2013, 5:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-john-mccain-lost-his-mind/659524/40 "2013-05-28T17:17:18Z")
> [@WillFarnaby](#): > > The group affiliated with al qaida is the [Al-Nusra Front](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Nusra_Front). > > Mccain is meeting with the [leader of a group who works closely with a group who works closely with a group who is affiliated with Al Qaida](http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/05/07/190602/syrian-rebel-leader-salim-idriss.html#.UaOoDes8w4Q) > > Now you may say that the link between Mccain and real deal terrorists is spurious at best, but what happens if Mccains favored group wins the war? They will have to deal with these other groups who were “most effective” in fighting Assad with them. Even if Mccain’s boys win it will be a shitstorm in Syria. So to answer the OP, Yes Mccain has lost what mind he had. > > Obama in Libya too. This is not “McCain’s favorite group”, it’s Obama’s favorite group. As your cite says: > [@](#): > > Idriss has become the key man in the international coalition that’s battling to end the Assad regime. The United States announced in April that it would funnel $123 million in nonlethal aid through his group… So, McCain is no more dealing with al Qaeda than Obama is. It’s time for the OP to come back into this thread and retract his erroneous statement. **Latro** : Glad you learned something about treason, but remember to read uncited claims in OPs with some skepticism. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-john-mccain-lost-his-mind/659524.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-john-mccain-lost-his-mind/659524.md?page=3)