Posted on 04/14/2018 7:29:42 AM PDT by MNDude
She added though “The Constitution gives Congress the power to authorize military action. If @realDonaldTrump wants to expand American military involvement in Syria’s civil war, he must seek approval from Congress – & provide a comprehensive strategy with clear goals & a plan to achieve them.”
Her comments were echoed by Senator Cory Booker of New Jersey, who said “I’m deeply concerned that President Trump continues to conduct military operations without any comprehensive strategy or the necessary congressional authorization.”
(Excerpt) Read more at theguardian.com ...
Democrats want to follow rule of law ?
Now that’s an interesting change of events
That’s for a Declaration of War...
The adults are in charge now.
Sit down and STFU.
We’ve been in Syria for years. Where have they been?
That horse left the barn a long time ago.
That’s funny, and disingenuous. The Syrian “civil war” is Obama’s adventure. Trump is doing everything he can to stay out of it, despite intense pressure from all sides to get involved. His two attacks, last night and a year ago, were designed to thread the needle, to make a statement about chemical warfare without either helping or harming either side in the war.
Democrats want to hide their involvement in a war that has killed half a million people.
Cory Booger is a A$$$$hole
Oh that pervert was involved?
Maybe I'm hearing what I want to hear. The carefully crafted statements and President Trump's comments make me hopeful that there's skepticism about Assad being involved. It sounded as if the strikes were to assure that Assad couldn't manufacture chemical weapons if he chose to do so.
But, yeah, freepers who like more US-led chaos in Syria. McCain and his Terrorists applaud the strikes! Doesn't that give you pause?
The ‘RATS are PO’d because PRESIDENT Trump bombed their Muzzie and Russki friends.
dem’s complaining should concisely state their idea of a “clear and comprehensive” strategy.
It is amazing how much Democrats discover laws only when the opposing party is in the White House. I’d bother looking to see about such calls by Republicans when Obama was in office, but already pretty sure they’d have defended his actions as not requiring congressional approval.
Your analysis is the way it seems with the statements.
He’s entirely within the scope of the War Powers Act.
Written specifically for this situation.
Don’t agree with the action at this point but there is no disputing that Trump has the authority to act. He hasn’t gone to war yet.
Apparently they do not require notification when a President sends pallets of cash to a sworn enemy in the dead of night.
+1
Oh ya, since it was their man child POTUS that got us into this friggan mess.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Powers_Resolution
...Syrian 2012-2017
See also: 2017 Shayrat missile strike, Syrian Train and Equip Program, and Timber Sycamore
In or about 2013, at the direction of U.S. President Barack Obama, the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) was put in charge of a covert program to arm and train the rebels who were fighting against Syrian President Assad,[27] while the State Department supplied the moderate rebels of the Free Syrian Army with non-lethal aid. The Assad regime used chemical weapons on several occasions during the civil war, including a well publicized attack in Ghouta on 21 August 2013. Following the attacks, Obama asked Congress for authorization to use military force in Syria, which Congress rejected. Instead, Congress passed a bill that specified that the Defense Secretary was authorized “...to provide assistance, including training, equipment, supplies, and sustainment, to appropriately vetted elements of the Syrian opposition and other appropriately vetted Syrian groups and individuals...” The bill specifically prohibited the introduction of U.S. troops or other U.S. forces into hostilities. The bill said:
“Nothing in this section shall be construed to constitute a specific statutory authorization for the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into situations wherein hostilities are clearly indicated by the circumstances.”[28]
In spite of the prohibition, President Obama, and later Trump, introduced ground forces into Syria and the United States became fully engaged in the country. On April 6, 2017, the United States launched 59 BGM-109 Tomahawk missiles at Shayrat airbase in Syria in response to Syria’s alleged use of chemical weapons. Constitutional scholar and law professor Stephen Vladeck has noted that the strike potentially violated the War Powers Resolution.[29]
guess he’d be right to take out US troops then.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.