Parliament rejects PM's request to censure Syria for use of chemical weapons.

[No Elephants]

During the 8-hour debate, it was established that there is no "smoking" gun type evidence.

Parliament debates eight hours on whether to censure Syria.


Our feckless Congress (or most of them) leave in place an unconstitutional authorizing the President to decide on his own whether to start a war.


But, No Elephants, you say, the administration of the equal rights law lecturer has said it believes the law to be constitutional. Obviously, Congress thought it was constitutional, or Congress would not have passed it. So, two branches of government believe it to be Constitutional. No disrespect, but who the hell are you to say otherwise.

Well, I'm someone who can read. I'm someone who does not make big bucks or get re-elected whenever the nation is at war.

The Constitution clearly puts the POTUS in charge of both foreign policy (though McCain seems not to have gotten that memo)and the military.

Yet, the Constitution also clearly says that Congress declares war, not the POTUS.

Given how short the Constitution was when first presented to the nation for ratification, we must make inferences. From the way that the Constitution allocated powers, I infer that the Framers felt very strongly that the CIC should not commence a war on his own.

War commits blood (our children, rarely those of the POTUS, Lincoln and FDR aside). War commits treasure. Our tax money.

Don't you really want that decision in the hands of many people, some of whom you can vote against in two to six years, rather than in the hands of a lone POTUS, who may be a lame duck under the term limit amendment to the Constitution?

Don't you want the debate on committing our children's lives and limbs and our tax dollars to be a public record, as the Constitution says proceedings of the House and Senate need to be, rather than behind closed doors of the Oval Office, protected by broad "Executive Privilege," something that the Framers did not even know about?

I know I do. And, clearly the Framers did.

[No Elephants]

1. PS, if there is no smoking evidence, why the hell are we even discussing bombing anyway?

Because "the smoking gun might come in the form of a mushroom cloud," as Dummya said about Iraq?

But, I voted for hope and change. What in hell did you vote for? A letter in parentheses after a name?

We have to punish Syria for someone's decision to use chemical weapons? Without even knowing for certain who used them?

And please tell me how bombing innocent people who had no part in the decision making--no matter whose decision it was--punishes Bashar Assad? Syrians dying by the thousands have not moved him yet, as long as his ass is in one piece and holding power.

This is so beyond barbaric, I cannot stand it.

We have an Iron Age mentality with Space Age killing technology. Very bad combo.

Bombing people for humanitarian reasons?

President, please.

[Enthusiast]

2. The President knows the American people are against a strike

on Syria. We'll see what he does. Maybe this will serve to depress support for Democratic candidates in 2014. That might be the underlying motive to begin with. Just like leading up to the 2010 elections-we did things that eroded support for the Democratic Party. I told you to be on the lookout for actions that undermined Democratic candidates.

[No Elephants]

3. I don't think the PTB especially care which wing of the uniparty wins.

After all, they contribute to both, sometimes to so-called "Democrats" more than to Republicans.

And they get their way from both, maybe more so from Democrats.

Could a Republican President have gotten away with asking the Senate to waive the Constitution to allow him to sign the TPP without Senate approval, as the Constitution requires?

Could a Republian President have gotten away with crowing about having ended welfare as we know it?

Could a Republican President have gotten away with urging Congress to repeal Glass Steagall?


However, putting Republicans in the majority of both Houses does preserve certain myths about Democrats. And, kabuki dictates that no one party be seen as to blame for all our ills.


I've been trying to get out of the myth business, though. Was duped with my cooperation there way too long.

We seem to have a uniparty, one wing of which talks crazier about cultural issues than the other wing. Akins talks about legitimate rape, then loses soundly to a Democrat who does not believe in choice, except in cases of incest and rape Some freakin' victory for women. Meanwhile, the dynamic affects the election of 2012 in every state, from the top of the ticket to the bottom. Women put Democrats over the top in that but they themselves won very little .

Besides, I don't know if cultural issues are enough for me anymore. Even if they were, if you shut your ears to the talk, there is little difference in actions. Not on the federal level, anyway. The Hyde Amendment lives on, with no attempts to repeal it. Ditto DOMA. Although Obama was quick to take credit, it was the Supreme Court that knock the wind out of a bigoted law that Bill Clinton signed. And the deciding vote was written by a Justice nominated by a Republican President. And the Log Cabin Republicans sued Obama over DADT, while the D of J asked the court to dismiss their case. So the lines keep getting blurrier, even on social issues.

Then, there is deregulation, for which we blame Ronnie. But, I've done some research. In reality, Carter and a Democratic Congress began it, dismantling some key parts of FDR's New Deal in the process.

I'll never vote Republican, but I'm done worrying which wing of the 1% uniparty wins a midterm.