116 Congressmen Note That Obama Does Not Have the Authority to Launch a War Against Syria

Yesterday evening 116 members of the House, including 18 Democrats as well as 98 Republicans, sent President Obama a letter urging him to "consult and receive authorization from Congress before ordering the use of U.S. military force in Syria." They note that "your responsibility to do so is prescribed in the Constitution [which gives Congress the authority "to declare war"] and the War Powers Resolution of 1973," which says "the President in every possible instance shall consult with Congress before introducing United States Armed Forces into hostilities." As J.D. Tuccille noted last night, Obama as a senator and presidential candidate agreed that "the President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation." He forgot about that when he unilaterally decided to intervene in Libya's civil war, but even then he did not question the constitutionality of the War Powers Resolution, arguing instead that bombing the crap out of forces loyal to Muammar al-Qaddafi did not amount to "hostilities." That claim, which contradicted the advice of Obama's own Office of Legal Counsel, was about as plausible as saying the entire population's phone records are "relevant" to a terrorism investigation. "If the use of 221 Tomahawk cruise missiles, 704 Joint Direct Attack Munitions, and 42 Predator Hellfire missiles expended in Libya does not constitute 'hostilities,'" the representatives who signed yesterday's letter ask, "what does?"

Since Obama says the point of military action against Syria is to deter further use of chemical weapons against opponents of the Assad regime, he clearly is not claiming his aim would be "stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation." Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), Obama's opponent in the presidential campaign during which the latter defended the legislative branch's war powers, offers a different rationale. "This is the same president that two years ago said that Bashar Assad must leave office, and so where is America's credibility?” the avid interventionist said on Fox News. "Where is our ability to influence events in the region?" As I said in June, when Obama decided to arm Syria's rebels because Assad had crossed a "red line" drawn by Obama, the argument that U.S. forces should be deployed not to defend the nation but to protect "America's credibility" is a recipe for ever-escalating intervention aimed at vindicating bad decisions.

Update: The number of representatives signing the letter has risen to 140.  

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • UnCivilServant||

    And the NSA does not have the authority to read this message in transit...

  • Spoonman.||

    Odd that Massie didn't seem to be on the list even though he is very against intervention.

  • sarcasmic||

    Well, he does have FYTW on his side.

  • John||

    And he won't have a UNSC resolution either. There must be thousands of liberals out there scraping off their "stop this illegal war" bumper stickers as we speak. This war will be illegal under both domestic and international law. A rare daily double for the Chocolate Nixon.

  • From the Tundra||

    I have the proggy wing of the family coming over this weekend (a couple of whom actually had those stickers). Should be a target rich environment...

  • John||

    Ask them about the Kellog Briand treaty and the need for a UNSCR before going to war absent self defense. Ask them about the importance of international law and the need to stop nations from going to war with one another without approval from the international community.

  • Jordan||

    You're making one fatal assumption here: that derpgressives operate on logic.

    "IT'S LEGAL IF THE PRESIDENT DOES IT!"
    - Nixon Obombya

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    -Ask them about the importance of international law and the need to stop nations from going to war with one another without approval from the international community.

    I imagine most people are tired of talking about the invasion of Iraq ;)

  • John||

    The funny thing is that Iraq had a UNSCR. The original ones from Gulf War I gave the US the right to use force to enforce them.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    It gave the US the right to enforce it without a UN resolution? That does not sound right (especially since W. Bush sought such a resolution before acting).

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    -The then United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan said in September 2004 that: "From our point of view and the UN Charter point of view, it [the war] was illegal."[1][2]

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L.....e_Iraq_War

  • John||

    Annan does not make the law or change what those resolutions said. The war was legal.

  • John Thacker||

    Well, it at least gave an argument, that the US was enforcing an old resolution.

    The argument is harder here, since Syria isn't even a signatory to treaties banning chemical weapons IIRC.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    They are a signatory to Geneva Conventions which some IR scholars think cover their chemical weapons use and there is an argument that the prohibition on chemical weapons use has moved in the area of accepted customary international law.

    Whether that justifies intervention by third parties to a conflict is another matter (and whether this is a good idea apart from legality is of course yet another).

  • Agammamon||

    And the Geneva Convention has nothing to do with the UN - it not a UN 'law' (resolution), its a third party treaty.

    And as a third party treaty, it depends on other signatories moving to punish those who break it.

    As much as I hate to admit it, its not really *wrong* for Obama to 'punish Syria for breaking *that* treaty.

    It still is beyond his authority to act without congressional approval.

    And of course, the constitutional scholar and his crack legal team don't seem to make even that basic argument for shooting - its just "If they hadn't done what I told 'em not to do, they'd still be alive".

  • ||

    The US isn't signatory to all of the Geneva Conventions either. For example, use of incendiary weapons on civilian populations is a war crime in most of the world, but the US never signed that one.

  • John||

    Violating international law does not justify war. There isn't even an argument here.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Oh, political winds, how ye shift.

  • John||

    He is stripping liberals of large part of their smugness. For many liberals the idea that they are on the side of peace and the Right are the war mongers is an article of faith and a very important source of their all important smugness. They are going to support him of course. But man is it going to hurt.

  • Duke||

    He is stripping liberals of large part of their smugness.

    I don’t know that it’s possible under Newtonian or Einsteinian physics to strip a liberal of their smugness.

  • John||

    Just some of it. And they will never show it. But inside it is killing them not to be the party of peace. Even though it wont' change things, at least we can enjoy their pain.

  • Duke||

    While I respect your statements, I have a very difficult time accepting that the Democrats have any desire to be known as a party of “peace.” Not based on their instigation and/or escalation of the various wars over the last 60 years nor in the number of babies they did not want to see born.

  • John||

    You assume that they live reality rather than a fantasy world. Ask any boomer liberal and objecting to Vietnam was the defining event of their life. The fact that Vietnam was the result of LBJ's policies never enters their heads. They all wake up every day thinking they are the party of peace and voting Democratic is the only way to keep the war mongers out of power.

  • CatoTheElder||

    Neither does the fact that US troop levels in Vietnam increased from 900 to 16300 during the KENNEDY years.

  • John||

    That was Camelot CATO. St. John would have never gotten us into Vietnam the way that damned Nixon did.

    They are totally insane but make up for it by being completely disconnected from reality.

  • WTF||

    Have you not heard of the peace of the grave?

  • db||

    They, like the Republicans, just want to be The Party. Then they can focus the State's righteous anger and might on molding society into The Correct Way and to making the Foreigners bend to Our Will.

  • John||

    No DB. Liberals are different. They have to feel smug. They have to feel superior. That is why they became liberal. And being the party of peace fighting the war mongering Republicans is a huge part of their identity. They were never happier than when they were out of power in the 00s raging about Bush's illegal wars. Being in charge and doing shit is just not a good role for them.

  • Duke||

    I whole heartedly agree that they want to feel smug. I also think they are mainly into whatever is convenient or expedient for them at the moment. Like how children are.

  • Libertymike||

    You are distinguishing liberals from just any old democrat, right?

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    -Liberals are different. They have to feel smug. They have to feel superior. That is why they became liberal.

    Of course I never find conservatives who have a smug sense of superiority when it comes to things like patriotism, morality, piousness and 'common sense.'

  • DenverJay||

    Naw you misunderstand: They are still the party of peace since this war is to stop the use of those evil WMDs

  • John||

    That is what they will claim. But Obama has been so brazen that even they don't believe it anymore. They just will never admit it publicly.

  • From the Tundra||

    But, but... human rights!

    (KABOOM!)

  • Nazdrakke||

    I don’t know that it’s possible under Newtonian or Einsteinian physics to strip a liberal of their smugness

    Oh, it's possible under just the right circumstances, but what's underneath it tends to be even uglier.

  • Anonymous Coward||

    John, the true believers are now advancing the theory that Barack doesn't really want to go to war, but evil, secret neocons in his administration (yeah, stop laughing) are making him do it.

  • John||

    I heard that. That is pretty rich. If you are so weak that you allow the people below you to manipulate you into going into an unlawful war, doesn't that make you unfit to be President? Isn't not going to war unless you have a good reason a pretty big part of the job?

  • Rich||

    evil, secret neocons in his administration (yeah, stop laughing) are making him do it.

    I'll stick to the more plausible explanation that space aliens are forcing both the Syria attack and the NSA surveillance.

  • Libertymike||

    And if the O man does not go along, do we face a kind of World's End? (hope this does not give away the upshot of the movie).

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    Same rhetoric as back in 2009 when Obama ramped up the troop count in Afghanistan.

    Teary-eyed critics called him a "war monger" back then too.

  • John||

    BUSHPIG!!!

    Throw some more of your own shit, you little retard.

  • Duke||

    I’ve noticed that Buttplug ALWAYS forces every discussion into a Republican/Democrat rubric. For example, if we call out Obama for being a liar and a hypocrite, he responds how either a) Bush was worse or b) a Republican forced the Democrat to do the bad thing. And so he never actually addresses the problems in his own house, he merely points out the squirrel across the street hoping that will distract you. Quite childish.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    I've also noticed that PB is a vicious homophobe. That says much about his character.

  • Nazdrakke||

    Also a racist who opposes the thought of those unruly brown kids being given vouchers to attend private schools where they would obviously cause all sorts of problems.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    I do think if the discussion is about how Obama is worse or the same as some previous administration then it is fine to talk about that other administration being worse. What gets me is that Palin's B*ttplug does not seem to acknowledge the problem that any libertarian should have with this or that Obama action regardless of whether someone did something worse. Case in point, as a libertarian I opposed the 'surge' as a waste of my taxpayer dollars and further lives, and I did not oppose it any more or less because Bush ordered the original invasion.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    I don't try to pass Obama off as a libertarian. He certainly is not one.

    For the foreseeable future a D or R will be POTUS. This begs a discussion of comparative competence and Obama wins that comparison. That is what I am guilty of.

    I notice that the Peanut Gallery has taken to call you a troll too, Bo Cara - for merely questioning the claim that Obama has the worst foreign policy ever. Any sensible person can remember the vast incompetence of the Bushpigs.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    I still maintain Bush's foreign policy was far worse. My issue is, why would you, as a libertarian, bring up Obama's surge to quiet criticism of Obama's foreign policy? The surge was a fault of Obama's, as you say, a 'near total waste of money.' That is our money by the way.

  • robc||

    He is a sock puppet, not a libertarian.

    Your "as a libertarian" comment is thus a false premise.

    Filter him and move on.

  • John||

    Shreek is a sock puppet run by three or four particularly retarded and nasty leftists whose job in life is to come on this board and screw it up. They get their talking points from various lefty websites and them and other retarded little brownshirts go out to troll and fuck up non leftist blogs.

    He comes on here to lie and obscure the conversation as much as possible and to make sure liberal talking points are left in hopes that casual readers will think libertarians actually believe them.

    He has nothing to add than being held up as an example of how nasty, retarded and fanatically devoted to defending Obama leftists are.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    I brought up Obama's wasteful surge to show conservatives here that Obama has a military-friendly track record and only an idiot thinks Obama is a pacifist bed-wetting progressive.

  • Duke||

    Who said progressives were pacifists?

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    Some of the Peanuts are gleeful that Obama is spitting in the face of Cindy Sheehan types.

    My point is that he did that long ago.

  • John||

    No retard, your point is to lie and do anything to keep your cult leader from looking bad. Shut the fuck up and stop pretending everyone here doesn't know that.

  • Jordan||

    So, you brought it up to refute a point nobody made. Got it. And progressive != pacifist.

  • John Thacker||

    Obama's track record and policy is indistinguishable from Bush's, yes.

  • Aresen||

    And Afghanistan is so stable now.

    The Karzai regime is a functioning modern democracy with representation from all sides.

    The Taliban are non-existent.

    Yep, that Afghan surge went so well.

    /sarc

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    It was a near total waste of money.

  • Brandon||

    "The president does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation."

    Who said that, Shreeky? Who? Do you know?

  • JWatts||

    Teary-eyed critics called him a "war monger" back then too.

    So, exactly why is Obama going to bomb Syria?

  • Dweebston||

    Oh, did some Congressmen dig out their tattered copies of the Constitution from under reams of unread draft bills? I'm not sure what's cuter, Congressmen waving it around like they buy the premise of restrained powers or believing that Obama does.

  • Duke||

    The only congressman who could have done that without hypocrisy that I know of would have been Ron Paul. He voted “no” to pretty much every cockamamy scheme the feds came up with just like the constitution requires.

  • Dave Krueger||

    ...116 members of the House...sent President Obama a letter urging him to "consult and receive authorization from Congress before ordering the use of U.S. military force in Syria".

    Hahahahahaha! Or what?

  • UnCivilServant||

    Hrmm... maybe a Caesar in the Senate moment? Can congresscritters carry knives?

  • Dweebston||

    Shh, fool, you'll get us all NS'd in the A.

  • DenverJay||

    Et tu, Baucus?

  • Pro Libertate||

    There is a what, but they're pathetically avoiding it yet again. They could do quite a bit to hamstring or even, if it came down to it, remove the president, but they'd rather send ineffectual, nonthreatening letters.

  • From the Tundra||

    Oh, I think there are some who would love to take it further, but when you can only get 1/4 of the house to even sign a fucking letter...

  • Pro Libertate||

    It's like the decline of the Roman Senate. Powerful and willing to kill tyrants one day, totally supine the next. At least they had years of civil war to weaken their resolve.

  • Brandon||

    The TEAM BLUE warboners at HuffPo have already launched a "look how silly those Republican obstructionist birther nazis would have to be to even suggest impeachment" campaign several days ago:

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/.....18079.html

  • Nazdrakke||

    So if he attacks Syria without getting approval from congress there will be impeachment proceedings begun immediately right? Or, well, we could just try out the dictator thing for a while, I guess. That's what the NY Times seems to think is the best option.

    This whole thing is beginning to make me sick. In a fit of morbid curiosity I went to read the comments at HuffPo and the NY Times to see what the proggies are saying. Many were at least raising some objection, but I noticed that most of the objection seemed to be just anti-war, rather than anti-dictatorial powers.

  • Dweebston||

    Even if we could extract concessions like "Well, it sets a bad precedent for a future Republican administration..." I'd be happy. But this seems not to be a concern for many of his supporters. Their thinking seems to be that Republicans will do it anyway, so hell, why not?

  • WTF||

    Actually, this is why they need to fight voter ID laws, to make sure there is never again a Republican president to wield these dangerous powers.

  • sarcasmic||

    President Biden!

  • Brandon||

    We'll just fire a shotgun off of Syria's balcony. That'll solve everything.

  • ||

    Nice.

  • CampingInYourPark||

    So if he attacks Syria without getting approval from congress there will be impeachment proceedings begun immediately right?

    Did you see any after Libya?

  • CampingInYourPark||

    Watching the British HOC on C-span. It appears that if there's a military strike on Syria it isn't going to have much support.

  • SIV||

    Obama pulls the trigger on executive order gun bans

    I don't trust the media to get it right but I believe the President just made it impossible for me to own an NFA weapon or device without moving to different county. Gangbangers, drug dealers, terrorists and child pornographers will now have to pay more for M1 Garands and M1903 Springfields.

  • John||

    Please explain to me what is happening. You can still by a new 1903, you just can't buy a surplus one from Europe, right?

  • SIV||

    I'm not clear on the extent of the mil-surp import ban. I think it only applies to the reimportation of firearms originally exported by the US Government.

  • John||

    So I can't buy an American 1903, but I can buy a German made K 98, which is basically the same fucking rifle. Yeah, that is highly effective.

  • Bardas Phocas||

    And the funnyiest part, you can purchase those weapons from a federally chartered CMP: http://www.odcmp.com/sales.htm

  • Brandon||

    So he is trying to stop agencies from bringing back the Fast & Furious weapons to investigate.

  • WTF||

    Because the Constitution certainly gives the president the power to do such a thing.

  • Almanian!||

    Then I am glad I already own a 1903 and just got an M1.

  • Duke||

    The Weekly Standard article didn’t go into what constituted military weapons being re-imported. Does that mean automatic M-4s or semi-auto military style weapons like my AR-15 and Russian AK-47?

    I did see that the FedGov put in a purchase order for millions of rounds of 7.62x39, a non-nato round. Why?

  • db||

    Importation to non-manufacturers or dealers of MGs and other NFA weapons is already prohibited by law amended in 1968.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    The EO means you can't register that weapon to a corporation.

  • SIV||

    That is a seperate order. Applies to putting ownership of NFA weapons in trusts.

  • db||

    Wait, what?!??! The President has amended the NFA all by his lonesome?

    If an NFA weapon can no longer be reregistered to a corporation, there are a lot of defense and security contractors that are going out of business, not to mention a fuck ton of dealers.

  • SIV||

    I'm sure the "right people" will be exempted.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    It appears this is not the first time this has been done and the likely culprit is our supine Congress delegating this kind of authority to the Executive.

    -Issuing an executive order is not a new idea. It has been used many times before.

    In 1989, then-President George H.W. Bush halted the importation of some semi-automatic firearms that could be considered “assault weapons” under existing legal authority provided by the 1968 Gun Control Act, under the determination that they were not “particularly suitable for or readily adapting to sporting purposes.”

    Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politic.....z2dNY7OVBr

  • db||

    I'm well aware of G.H.W. Bush's illegal executive orders on the subject, and I have frequently pointed them out here and elsewhere. Thanks for providing a link for everyone though. It's another example of how our founding documents and laws are treated as so much toilet papet stuck to the shoes of those in power.

  • wingnutx||

    What this means for NFA is that trustees will have to submit fingerprints like an individual would.

    It is not clear if this means just the trustee submitting the form, all trustees, or all beneficiaries.

    If it is just the trustee that submits the form then it sucks, but is workable.

    If it is everyone in the entire trust then it's a fucking nightmare.

    Right now I am waiting on my lunch break to go mail in two Form 4s and my trust to the BATF. I guess I'll find out one way or the other.

  • Aresen||

    OT:

    In North Korea, breaking up is hard on you:

    Kim Jong-un's ex-lover 'executed by firing squad'

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/new.....squad.html

  • UnCivilServant||

    You missed the AM Links, didn't you?

    Though I admit I'm surprised that they have the death penalty for porn.

  • ||

    Maybe if you got up before noon and read the Morning Links, you'd know this was already posted.

  • Nazdrakke||

    Heh, East Coast Elites...

  • ||

    Way east.

  • SIV||

    Her cultural appropriation of twerking was a crime against the state.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    Authority shmority!

    "You know what this is? That's right, its a fucking PEACE PRIZE! You can't tell me shit. I go to war when I want, where I want, all fucking day long."

  • Almanian!||

    John| 8.29.13 @ 11:46AM |# He is stripping liberals of...the idea that they are on the side of peace and the Right are the war mongers is an article of faith

    WWI - Wilson
    WWII - Roosevelt
    Korea - Truman
    Viet Nam - Johnson
    Iraq 1 - Bush the Elder
    Bosnia, SOMALIA ZOMFG!11!, and some other shit - Clinton
    Iraq 2, Afghanistan - Now It's OUR Turn - Bush the Lesser
    Yeah, I skipped some stuff - whatever.

    So, yeah, they're already willlfully ignorant of fairly-recent history, mostly of intervention in shit that didn't directly affect US Security (exc WWII, I would argue). Their "way back" machine only goes to BOOOOOOOOSH.

    THEY'RE the global imperialists. Proggie's looooove them some American Exceptionalism, and administering it to people elsewhere in the world good and hard.

    So - fuck 'em.

  • Tim||

    Haiti-now there was an intervention. Colin Powell promised to give the Generals each an autographed photo and the whole island surrendered.

  • John||

    Yes. They live in a fucking fantasy world. But Obama doing this is causing reality to dangerously intrude on their narrative.

  • db||

    Vietnam: America's "Vietnam"
    Afghanistan: Russia's "Vietnam"
    Afghanistan: America's "Afghanistan"
    Syria: ...?

  • John||

    America's Gustavo Princip?

  • The Late P Brooks||

    However, felons, domestic abusers, and others prohibited from having guns can easily evade the required background check and gain access to machine guns or other particularly dangerous weapons by registering the weapon to a trust or corporation. At present, when the weapon is registered to a trust or corporation, no background check is run.

    Why do I assume this is complete and utter bullshit?

  • John||

    Didn't you know Brooks, that gangs often form corporations so they can legally buy weapons?

  • SweatingGin||

    The $200 tax, and $8000+ starting price is no obstacle to legally purchasing and registering those machine guns to a corporation.

  • Gray Ghost||

    I know that only one or two legally owned NFA machineguns have ever been used to commit a crime. Isn't the same true for other items legally owned under the NFA, like suppressors and short-barreled rifles? If so, how many felons do they think they're preventing from owning these things? Just more legislating from the Executive Branch.

    Mendacious shitbags, the lot of 'em.

  • db||

    One main reason people register NFA weapons to corps or trusts is that the damn background checks take so damn long to go through. And there's no reason for it. The background check consists of the ATF NFA branch document examiner forwarding the fingerprint cards to FBI, waiting three to nine months for the FBI yo get off its ass and run them through its instantaneous database and mail them back to ATF, yhen sit on them for another couple of months before they put a stamp and signature on the Form 5320.x and drop it on the outgoing mail pile. It is a bureauctratic wet dream of inefficiency.

  • General Butt Naked||

    I always thought people formed corps because you need the head of your local law enforcement to sign off on your application if you do it as an individual. If you're a company you don't need the sign off.

    I never looked too deep into it, so I could be wrong.

  • db||

    That is another part of it for sure.

  • wingnutx||

    Three main reasons:

    No local LEO permission needed

    More than one person can legally have access to the items. In my case myself and my wife. If it was registered just to me then she wouldn't be able to even have the combo to the safe.

    No fingerprints. This is just a time saver. The first two are much bigger legal issues.

  • bmp1701||

    Why do I assume this is complete and utter bullshit?

    Brooksie, it's a well-known fact that many domestic abusers will stop beating their wives in order to file articles of incorporation under Delaware law so that they can then use artificial legal personas to acquire guns. Also, Citizens United!

  • db||

    "This is the same president that two years ago said that Bashar Assad must leave office, and so where is America's credibility?” the avid interventionist said on Fox News. "Where is our ability to influence events in the region?" As I said in June, when Obama decided to arm Syria's rebels because Assad had crossed a "red line" drawn by Obama, the argument that U.S. forces should be deployed not to defend the nation but to protect "America's credibility" is a recipe for ever-escalating intervention aimed at vindicating bad decisions.

    America is locked in a perpetual big-dick contest with itself. Some seem to have this constant fear that we'll never measure up to Grandpa's enormous throbbing dong that he used to root the hell out of European fascism and so we have to go on jamming our junk into holes all over the world, no matter how diseased or toothy. Eventually you'll get that thing bit off, Junior.

  • bmp1701||

    Sadly, George Carlin pretty much summarized American strategic thought with the Bigger Dick Foreign Policy Theory. "What, Bashar said he has a bigger dick?!? BOMB HIM!."

  • db||

    Yeah, but as I pointed out, they're trying to out-dick their forefathers too.

  • SweatingGin||

    so we have to go on jamming our junk into holes all over the world, no matter how diseased or toothy.

    ... a line from a future episode of Warty Hugeman?

  • db||

    Naturally.

    Which is a horrible adjective for anything involving Warty.

  • db||

    Adjective, adverb, whatever. In a Timesuit, thay all look the same.

  • VicRattlehead||

    its called the black clap.. dont need to be bitten off it just kinda turns black and rots off

  • db||

    Oh, and for fuck's sake, Reason, the squirrels need to be euthanized. This commenting system or whatever is causing this page alone to eat up 190+ megabytes of RAM on my Android browser, and I have to keep killing the browser process and restarting it to even view your web site much less to comment.

  • Nooge.||

    HR has long been horrific and unbrowsable on phones.

  • SIV||

    Hit&Run; blows on mobile devices.

  • Paul.||

    That's a polite way to say it.

  • ||

    HyR is fine on my iPhone.

    That's right I said iPhone.

  • Paul.||

    Sorry, I have a Guy Phone.

  • Bardas Phocas||

    Damn obstrucsionistic rat-baggers. They are standing in the way of Obama achieving martial glory on the fields of Mars.

  • John||

    Illegal wars are just fine when we do it.

  • Nooge.||

    I am so fucking sick of McCain. He has got to go. He truly personifies everything there is to hate about neocons.

    Part of me does hope that His Holiness President Peace Prize does start another war, but it's probably just the part that is willing to accept a pyrrhic victory to get rid of fucks like him and McCain.

  • John||

    McCain isn't a neocon. I wish people would stop using that term as an all purpose insult. McCain is just a nut at this point. He really has lost his mind. He doesn't have a philosophy beyond if the President wants to do it overseas, he is obligated to be for it.

  • Tim||

    That's Senator Nut to you.

  • tarran||

    Curse your nimble fingers, John!

    Curse them to hell!

  • robc||


    I wish people would stop using that term as an all purpose insult.

    Me too. The peak neocon derp was back when Ashcroft was being called a neocon.

    There is a fucking reason he couldnt stick with the Bush administration.

  • VicRattlehead||

    too bad he wasn't burned alive in the fire he saved those sailors from all those years ago, then he could have died a hero instead of living to become the monster

  • Brandon||

    Pre-emptive war with anyone and everyone, wanting to roll back the sequester because it affected military funding, how's he not a neocon.

  • Nooge.||

    I acknowledge your point, John. But his interventionist warboner tendencies are at least neocon-ish.

  • tarran||

    McCain isn't a neocon.

    He's a fucking deranged angry person who sees the world in terms of crises caused by bad guys who need to be punished.

    His love of violence often puts him in alliances of convenience with neocons, but that's not because of any philosophical affinity.

  • Paul.||

    I like how people tend to forget how much McCain was hated by the Republican base, and why the left-of-center media dubbed him "the maverick".

  • Nooge.||

    You're right. McCain's philosophical affinity is insanity.

  • Tim||

    We bombed Syria in 1982, so technically this is Reagans' war.

  • Nooge.||

    And also BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOSH somehow.

  • Paul.||

    So was Libya!

  • Paul.||

    Maybe Obama is going to justify his peace prize the way Arafat did: Kill a bunch of people, then stop.

  • VicRattlehead||

    Fix our country before imperilizing others

  • Spartacus||

    Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), Obama's opponent in the presidential campaign during which the latter defended the legislative branch's war powers, offers a different rationale. "This is the same president that two years ago said that Bashar Assad must leave office, and so where is America's credibility?”

    In other words, Assad disrespected us, and he needs to be made an example of, no matter how many other people have to die to do it.

  • Agammamon||

    ". . . a letter urging him to "consult and receive authorization from Congress . . . "

    Why? Don't 'urge him, *tell* him. You're the senior fething branch, the one the executive is supposed to take its marching orders from. Tell him straight up that if he doesn't get authorization from your body then you'll remove him from office.

    Don't pussy around, take back the power that belong to your branch - do your fucking job.

  • Nooge.||

    There isn't enough collective courage in the federal legislature to even whisper about doing that. Congress has allowed itself to be subordinate to the executive at the convenience and political expedience of the ruling party too often to mount any credible opposition.

    Also, Boehner is a total failure and needs to be fired.

  • Paul.||

    Also, Boehner is a total failure and needs to be fired.

    If only there were some way to remove a public official from orifice.

  • ||

    If using "221 Tomahawk cruise missiles, 704 Joint Direct Attack Munitions, and 42 Predator Hellfire missiles" does not constitute hostilities, does that mean that the US would not have a casus belli if someone were to fire that same weight of hardware into our cities?

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement