Pres. Obama Says Politics Precludes Him From Saying If He'll Strike Syria W/Out Congress Approval

[bigtree]

29. I think the 'bind' on the president is a tenuous one, if there is one

I'm more concerned with giving our elected representatives flexibility than I am in allowing the Executive what amounts to a blank check.

It isn't as if there's a limiting line of accountability from Congress to the president. That control they have is a complicated gambit of allowing or withholding defense funds. That's where the check on that presidential authority lies.

What I, personally, would look for in a president is one who understands that he takes a nation to war, not just his administration. Having Congress assume initial responsibility for waging war is an integral and vital facet of our democracy.

That initial recognition by the president of that responsibility of Congress to initiate warring should be* more than some political formality. However, as we've seen in many unilateral uses of force by the Executive over the course of history, Congress is loath to deny funding for an operation that's underway; for a mission where troops have already been committed to the field.

All our contemporary CiCs have had to do is make a unilateral declaration that their actions are in defense of 'national security' or in response to some 'threat' or the other against the U.S. or our interests. That's the reasoning the White House has decided to promote for their military ambitions in Syria. By declaring that attacks within Syria are in our 'national interests', and pose a 'threat' to our nation, the President and his deputies are declaring themselves above and beyond the initial judgment of Congress of whether their mission has merit and is supportable. For many folks out here, that's just a slippery slope to war.

That may well suit those who are firm in their belief that military force is imperative, yet, it is a stance which flies in the face of the overwhelming rejection of military strikes from a majority of Americans polled and a majority who have bothered to tell their Representatives and Senators where they stand.

As far as I've understood the President and his SoS, they believe they have that authority already, so I'm a bit puzzled why there's some question out there about whether he'll buck the judgment and vote of Congress and invade anyway.

I just know that the President needs a constant and vocal reminder that there are a majority of us out here who don't agree with his stance and would appreciate if he would tell us up front that he'll respect the judgment of our elected officials and not rely solely on his own determination - his own decision - that we should go to war with Syria.

I don't want the Executive to have flexibility beyond the will and reach of Congress to easily initiate war.