Dem rep. says Obama should 'withdraw' authorization request

[dkf]

Dem rep. says Obama should 'withdraw' authorization request
Ashley Killough

(CNN) – The president should cancel his request for Congress to approve U.S. military strikes in Syria, Democratic Rep. Jim McGovern said Sunday.

"If I were the president, I would withdraw my request for the authorization at this particular point," the congressman from Massachusetts said on CNN's "State of the Union." "I don't believe the support is there in Congress."

McGovern argued people tend to view war "as a last resort," and he disagreed with the notion that "we're at that point."

"I would step back a little bit. We have some other issues we have to deal with in Congress, domestic and international," McGovern told CNN's chief political correspondent, Candy Crowley. "But I think at this point if he were asking for my advice, I'd say withdraw the authorization."

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/09/08/dem-rep-says-obama-should-withdraw-authorization-request/

[tridim]

1. McGovern, playing checkers as the President calls checkmate.

Does nobody understand how screwed the Republicans are over this vote?

[FarCenter]

2. No -- explain it for me.

[Igel]

20. And even if true, is that really a reason to vote for bombing Syria? n/t

I

[whatchamacallit]

10. Um... how does it hurt republicans to vote against something almost no Americans want?

[Rex]

3. Just do your fucking job!

Stop pretending the POTUS declares war and do your fucking job Congress! Such a useless group of people.

[Coyotl]

4. BRAVO. May cooler minds and peacemakers prevail before Obama is the world's leading war criminal.

Even with authorization, attacking another country is a war crime.

[VanillaRhapsody]

14. uh no its not...

[Coyotl]

19. There is the self-defense exception in international law. Nothing more though!

[ProSense]

5. Congress, be careful what you wish for

Congress, be careful what you wish for

By Steve Benen

<...>

Over the last several days, members of Congress have spoken out with a variety of opinions about U.S. policy towards Syria, but lawmakers were in broad agreement about one thing: they wanted President Obama to engage Congress on the use of military force. Few expected the White House to take the requests too seriously...Because over the last several decades, presidents in both parties have increasingly consolidated authority over national security matters, tilting practically all power over the use of force towards the Oval Office and away from the legislative branch. Whereas the Constitution and the War Powers Act intended to serve as checks on presidential authority on military intervention abroad, there's been a gradual (ahem) drift away from these institutional norms...until this afternoon, when President Obama stunned everyone, announcing his decision to seek "authorization" from a co-equal branch of government.

It's one of those terrific examples of good politics and good policy. On the former, the American public clearly endorses the idea of Congress giving its approval before military strikes begin. On the latter, at the risk of putting too fine a point on this, Obama's move away from unilateralism reflects how our constitutional, democratic system of government is supposed to work.

Arguably the most amazing response to the news came from Rep. Peter King (R-N.Y.), the chair of the House Homeland Security Subcommittee on Counterintelligence & Terrorism, and a member of the House Intelligence Committee:

"President Obama is abdicating his responsibility as commander-in-chief and undermining the authority of future presidents. The President does not need Congress to authorize a strike on Syria."

This is one of those remarkable moments when a prominent member of Congress urges the White House to circumvent Congress, even after many of his colleagues spent the week making the exact opposite argument.

- more -

http://maddowblog.msnbc.com/_news/2013/08/31/20273174-congress-be-careful-what-you-wish-for

Crash Course: A Guide To 30 Years Of U.S. Military Strikes Against Other Nations
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/crash-course-a-guide-to-30-years-of-us-military-strikes-against-other-nations.php

[FarCenter]

8. Peter King doesn't want to limit his future powers as president!

Rep. Pete King of Long Island: I am running for President

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/rep-pete-king-running-president-article-1.1448381

[Marr]

6. I think he's going to do it whether Congress approves or not.

Obama's comments yesterday made it sound like he was now trying to frame the situation as his having gone to Congress to see if they had any additional ideas to add to an Syria strike, not to ask permission.

[DirkGently]

9. But if he strikes after realizing America opposes it

...Obama is dooming his legacy and the party's immediate political future.

People don't like Obama & Syria compared to Bush / Iraq?

If he strikes after proving the country and Congress don't want it, he will be seen as worse than Bush.

[VanillaRhapsody]

15. Unless he is successful.....that is the part that kills me in all this...

so many seem to think he will fail. I do not agree....
If he destroys Assad's chemical weapons...we will have dramatically increased the removal of all chemical weapons from the table. 78% are already gone and only 5 countries have not signed the agreement...Syria being one of them. So if he destroys Syrias chemical weapons successfully then Assad will not be gassing children like cockroaches again.

Oh ye of little faith...

[DirkGently]

16. They can't even strike the weapons.

What's proposed is damaging Assad's general C & C and logistics to make it harder to use them.

The effectiveness of that can never be proven. If Assad doesn't use chemicals again, it could be that he never intended to anyway. If he does, it will show we made it worse.

Which is why the limited strike idea is nonsense. If we're in it, we'll stay and escalate until Assad is down, and the mess that follows will therefore be on us as well.

[davidn3600]

18. You can't destroy those weapons from the air....that's the problem

Assad has those weapons hidden underground. Cruise missiles cannot get to them.

We can somewhat damage his delivery systems. But it would take about 75,000+ troops on the ground to secure those chemical weapons (Pentagon estimate).

The American people have no stomach or patience for another war. Period.

[forestpath]

13. So do I.

[HardTimes99]

7. I actually disagree with McGovern, although I opose any military intervention. Obama

needs a face-saving way to back himself out of the corner (91% public disapproval of the proposed action) into which his red line comment and subsequent bellicosity had painted him. A solid "No" vote by Congress will provide him with a dignified way to save face and preserve at least some of his power for the remainder of his term.

[CakeGrrl]

12. Of course - they don't want to be responsible for being ON THE RECORD

What's the problem?

If it's so wrong, just vote "No" and be done with it.

[perdita9]

17. Have the guts to go on the record!

That's what these votes are about.

And, while I'm against war in general, I admire Obama for at least trying to do SOMETHING about the atrocities in Syria. Too many people in the world are looking the other way.