Trump sends Congress letter explaining Syria strike

[mystery-ak]

Trump sends Congress letter explaining Syria strike
By Max Greenwood - 04/08/17 03:00 PM EDT

President Trump on Saturday delivered his justification to Congress for ordering a missile strike on Syria this week, saying in a letter to congressional leaders that the U.S. was prepared to take further military action if necessary.

"I acted in the vital national security and foreign policy interests of the United States, pursuant to my constitutional authority to conduct foreign relations and as Commander in Chief and Chief Executive," Trump wrote.

more
http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/327962-trump-sends-congress-letter-explaining-syria-strike

[INVAR]

"Further military action" requires Trump get some sign-off from Congress, either a resolution or approved funding for whatever those further military actions will cost and require.

He's acting against a nation-state and it's existing ruler, not a terrorist organization - so he needs to get some kind of agreement from Congress to do what his policy will require.

It will be very instructive if he does not.

[ABX]

He did within 48 hours as required by law. Correct move.

[truth_seeker]

Do any of our Code Pink Republicans/"conservatives" bother to learn if Reagan got approval from Congress for his Grenada adventure?

Or GHW Bush for his Panama adventure?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_war_by_the_United_States#Other_undeclared_wars

[EC]

He did within 48 hours as required by law. Correct move.

Yep. He did what was needed, which is good and how the system is designed.

Of course, further planned actions should have formal congressional approval, either through an authorization to use military force (I'm not fond of the Worm's workaround of deeming the Bush authorization extended, it's too hazy a reason to ask your guys to put their lives on the line) or a declaration of war (which won't happen).

[INVAR]

Do any of our Code Pink Republicans/"conservatives" bother to learn if Reagan got approval from Congress for his Grenada adventure?

Or GHW Bush for his Panama adventure?

So we're "Code Pink" because we expect Trump to get Congressional approval for further military action - be it via resolution or funding for military appropriations????

You Trump faithful sure like to blow up any potential bridges of support for your guy don't you?

[XenaLee]

So we're "Code Pink" because we expect Trump to get Congressional approval for further military action - be it via resolution or funding for military appropriations????

You Trump faithful sure like to blow up any potential bridges of support for your guy don't you?

Emphasis on "further" military action.  Anyone that has a problem with that does not have Trump's best interests at heart, despite what they may bleat.

[Rivergirl]

When your child does something wrong and then insists that the other kids did it too...........does that make you feel sooo much better.  Sheesh.
But Obama, But Clinton, but Bush and now we are all the way back to Reagan..............
Beam me up.

[truth_seeker]

So we're "Code Pink" because we expect Trump to get Congressional approval for further military action - be it via resolution or funding for military appropriations????

You Trump faithful sure like to blow up any potential bridges of support for your guy don't you?

I am merely a faithful conservative, supporting my elected Republican president like I have done since 1968.

Not a conditional or fair weather supporter. I don't need bridges.

A Republican will always be better for my country than a democrat. Simple common sense.

No long winded diatribe or sermons needed.

[corbe]

I am merely a faithful conservative, supporting my elected Republican president like I have done since 1968.

Not a conditional or fair weather supporter. I don't need bridges.

A Republican will always be better for my country than a democrat. Simple common sense.

No long winded diatribe or sermons needed.

   I do believe that is your political philosophy @truth_seeker
   But if you did question some of these Presidents actions:  Nixon, Ford, Reagan, GHWB and Bush jr. that would make you a hypocrite because of your intolerable attitude toward those of us that question President's Trump's actions, sometimes.

[truth_seeker]

   I do believe that is your political philosophy @truth_seeker
   But if you did question some of these Presidents actions:  Nixon, Ford, Reagan, GHWB and Bush jr. that would make you a hypocrite because of your intolerable attitude toward those of us that question President's Trump's actions, sometimes.

I'm no hypocrite.  That is a difference.

I was really disappointed when Nixon didn't end the Vietnam War, as I had expected.

I was mad as hell, when Reagan implemented Amnesty.

But I didn't call them names every day, every hour like quite a few of the main members do, here.

[Cripplecreek]

Just because we seem to have forgotten that there are other players there.

[corbe]

I'm no hypocrite.

That is a difference. I was mad as hell, when Reagan implemented Amnesty.

But I didn't call him names every day, every hour like quite a few of the main members do, here.

   I don't share your gravity of the situation @truth_seeker in TBR.
   Sure there are a few #nevertrumpers here (I deplore that Term), I empathize with the members, though, but the Great majority here are Conservatives that want what's best for our Country and are still unconvinced of it's future direction with 'your' candidate at the helm.

    Cut us some slack, with the GOP worship.

[INVAR]

I am merely a faithful conservative, supporting my elected Republican president like I have done since 1968.

Not a conditional or fair weather supporter. I don't need bridges.

A Republican will always be better for my country than a democrat. Simple common sense.

No long winded diatribe or sermons needed.

Spare me your hoisted petards and your hubris about what a great Party Loyalist your are.  You didn't answer my question. 

In your estimation all of us Conservatives who expect Trump to get Congressional approval for further military action - via resolution or funding for military appropriations, are part of "Code Pink" anti-war nut jobs???????????

I'm assuming you assert 'yes' to that question - which is why I said you Trump acolytes only know how to blow up and burn bridges of anyone who does not fall on their face flat to genuflect Trump.

[LonestarDream]

Just because we seem to have forgotten that there are other players there.

Very good map.  Kurdistan is becoming a big player.

@don-o

[INVAR]

Syrian Quagmire For Dummies:



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JFpanWNgfQY

[Cripplecreek]

Very good map.  Kurdistan is becoming a big player.

@don-o

There was a time when the Kurds were the dominant group in the mideast

[Rivergirl]

So thankful for the patriots who refused to vote for the o-care so called replacement.  They forced the main stream to work harder to do the right thing.
Thankful they didn't go along to get along because after all, it's their party.

[don-o]

Just because we seem to have forgotten that there are other players there.

Haven't those border lines outlived their usefulness? Hoping for these places to become melting pots has surely been exposed as a pipe dream. Bush could have set tone with a partition of Iraq.

[LonestarDream]

There was a time when the Kurds were the dominant group in the mideast

When was that ?  Prior to WW I ?

[ABX]

Just because some people get their panties in a wad-

1. Yes, Reagan did inform Congress. Per this archive article, Reagan informed Congress a week ahead of time on Grenada.  The Dems got pissy and said it didn't count due to not citing the correct provision, but notice was given and then Congress did their due diligence after the fact and passed a war powers resolution.

http://www.nytimes.com/1983/11/02/world/house-votes-bill-applying-war-law-to-grenada-move.html

Under the War Powers Resolution, enacted 10 years ago, the President is required to notify Congress within 48 hours whenever American troops are engaged in hostilities abroad. Those troops must be removed within 60 days from the date of that notification - 90 days if the President asks for an extension - unless Congress authorizes their continued presence.

Mr. Reagan did inform Congress a week ago that troops were invading Grenada, but lawmakers say he failed to comply with the exact meaning of the law because he did not cite the provision of the statute that sets the 60- day time clock in motion.

2. H.W. Bush did inform congress of Panama within the required 48 hours and hostilities ended within 60 days as he didn't receive their approval at the time.
https://prezi.com/szvu6yqfr7g_/invasion-of-panama-presentation/

In his report to Congress, Bush explained that he was notifying Congress in accordance with the War Powers Resolution that Congress be notified within forty-eight hours when U.S. forces are used against a foreign government.

“a lawful exercise of presidential authority” and asserted that the military operations ordered were consistent with his “constitutional authority with respect to the conduct of foreign relations and as Commander in Chief” as stated in the U.S. Constitution in Article II Section II, “The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States…" therefore acted to protect lives in imminent danger.....

...In his message to congress the day after the invasion, Bush wrote, “The military operations were ordered pursuant to my constitutional authority with respect to the conduct of foreign relations and as Commander in Chief.”....

As I stated above, Trump did do the right thing by the law and notified Congress w/ in 48 hours.

[edpc]

President Trump on Saturday delivered his justification to Congress for ordering a missile strike on Syria this week, saying in a letter to congressional leaders that the U.S. was prepared to take further military action if necessary.

"I acted in the vital national security and foreign policy interests of the United States...."

Which were what, exactly?  Regional stability?  That's a laugh.