Not the same Assad.
What if we catch the rebels using chemical weapons?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
If you read the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution, you’ll see:
And in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists:
And in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 1991:
The War Powers Resolution requires either an authorization for the use of force, or a declaration of war.
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.
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
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.
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.
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 saw that, thanks for explaining. I thought you had identified the 1991 AUMF as the 2003 justification for Iraq. My apologies.
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:
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).
No problem, glad we’re clear.
At least Sarah was smart enough to run with someone who would never pal around with terrorists.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Also, it should be noted that McCain is on the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, giving him a particular interest in these matters.
Got a cite for Russia and China saying to was OK to bomb Serbia? You’re probably thinking of NATO.
The group affiliated with al qaida is the 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
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.
It’s Hezollah vs. Al Qaeda. There’s no good side here, but I think Hezbollah is the greater threat.
This is not “McCain’s favorite group”, it’s Obama’s favorite group. As your cite says:
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.