I might faint

Congress is actually legislating something reasonable and limiting the executive branch. I’m sure they’ll get back to steroid use in baseball soon.

2 responses to “I might faint

  1. I disagree. It’s not reasonable at all. I’m firmly opposed to attacking Syria; there’s no upside for us and no upside for anyone in Syria based on what the President actually says he wants to do.

    However, if Congress does authorize us to go to war, and make no mistake, that’s what this would be, it’s insanity to tell the world up front what we are and are not willing to do.

    Congress can, and should, tell the President that he shouldn’t start a war if they don’t believe it’s in the countries interest. However, if Congress decides to press forward, they should support the executive branch fully and not put artificial limits on war-making.

  2. I see your point. I’m just really surprised that Congress is showing any backbone at all on something that is actually important. They’ve been rolling over for the executive branch for almost 15 years now. They’re stuck, don’t delcare war and tell the world to ignore what the president’s words because they aren’t going to back him up or declare a war that no one wants. I see why they want to do as little as possible while saving face. I also see why this might explode in our faces and whoops, we have to destroy the military and install some other dude.

    But after Iraq, it’s going to be a few more years of lobbing bombs and droning people before we are willing to attempt another actual war. Especially in an area where there are not good regimes to change to. Given the boundless opportunities in the ME for mission creep I’m okay with declaring the limits to which we’re willing to jump in the quicksand, at least to start with.

    We probably should just get Assad in front of a jury in the Hague for war crimes, but that would be too messy politically (ha, like this muddle isn’t).