Neci'sGovernment Adventure
0 view | +0 today
Follow
Your new post is loading...
Your new post is loading...
Rescooped by Neci Garrett from AP Government & Politics
Scoop.it!

Sen. Ted Cruz: I Don't Think President Obama 'Has the Authority' to Order Syria Strike Without Congressional Approval

Sen. Ted Cruz: I Don't Think President Obama 'Has the Authority' to Order Syria Strike Without Congressional Approval | Neci'sGovernment Adventure | Scoop.it
Contradicting President Obama’s assertion, Republican Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas said this morning on “This Week” that the president does not have the authority to order a military strike on Syria without Congressional approval.

Via Teresa Herrin
Neci Garrett's insight:

Senetor Cruz is making great points. I dont agree with his comment about Al Queda but, I do agree that with him that the actions can harm us. Like he said, Syria's allies could very well be no better than Assad. Just like we killed Osama Bin Laden, we can kill Assad to. Now maybe that comment is a little far gone but, we will most likely end up doing 3 things : killing innocent people, harming the United States & angering any other terrorist, and this end up being a boots on the ground war. I love my country dearly but this is a really dumb decision and i feel like Obama and America is handling this situation lightly. If hes doing this to his own people, imagine what he can do to us.

more...
Sammy Masri's curator insight, September 17, 2013 12:19 AM

Cruz spoke very well for the majority of the speech: he made a reasonable case about why an attack would not work. But he faltered on two points. One: The state of Texas, vast as though it may be, does not represent the United States. Two: It's almost become customary of Republicans to bring up Benghazi whenever possible. It happened, nothing short of a full-scale operation and the ability to see the future could have prevented it, let the American dead rest in peace.

 

Also, the longer you show the US not supporting innocent civilians, the more and more radical these "Islamic terrorists" will become. Cut to the chase - or in this case, a missile strike - and nip the thing in the bud before it grows too big.

Rachel Murphy's curator insight, October 2, 2013 8:20 PM

Cruz makes it clear that he does not approve of military action in Syria. He believes a strike would aid rebel forces with links to Al-Qaeda. The strike may weaken Assad, but it would only give rebel forces an opportunity to swoop in. His precautions with the attack are plausible. I like the point he made about how OUR US military is not Al-Qaeda's air force. They are here to defend the United States.

Paulina Ho's curator insight, December 19, 2013 6:16 PM

This video shows how complicated this whole situation is, and I had no idea how opposed the public was to involvment in Syria. Is there is a way to reprimand him without a strike? War crimes need to be reprimanded, but does this mean we have to go to war? I was all for involvment, but now I'm really questioning whether that would be the right thing to do.

Scooped by Neci Garrett
Scoop.it!

Video: Denis McDonough: 'Outraged' at Ted Cruz's Al Qaeda comments

Video: Denis McDonough: 'Outraged' at Ted Cruz's Al Qaeda comments | Neci'sGovernment Adventure | Scoop.it
Denis McDonough, in an interview on ABC's 'This Week' said he was 'outraged' at Ted Cruz's comments that our forces would be serving as 'Al Qaeda's air force.' The interview was immediately followed by one with Sen.
Neci Garrett's insight:

There is no way to tell whether this wont be a boots on the ground. There is a 9 times out of 10 change that it will. Syria has allies that can very well attack us full blast. Its seriously not our business to fight syrian Battles. I do understand that we have a world treaty, but we have to look at the bigger picture and what we are dealing with.

more...
Sammy Masri's curator insight, September 17, 2013 12:25 AM

30 seconds of generalized response isn't much to go on, and McDonough's statement showed it. Rather than namby-pamby about the issue, everyone needs to grab their fears by the horns are realize: "Yes, we will possibly be helping some groups that are maybe connected to Al-Qaeda. But in the meantime, we can help a whole country of civilians, who, when pressed, will vote for the more reasonable members of the rebels, IF the US helps in time."

 

No more of this "small, calculated, concise" strike nonsense.

Tianna Kelly's curator insight, December 1, 2013 9:02 PM

My initial reacton to Senator Cruz's was similar to McDonough's; Cruz's statement was clearly crafted to be sensational and make headlines. Although I am not a fan of potential United States military action in Syria, Cruz's comments were purposefully disrespectful and, as McDonough iterated, "outrageous".

Paulina Ho's curator insight, December 19, 2013 7:35 PM

It seems very normal and typical for hte Chief of Staff to assure the public that there will be no boots on the ground, but I believe that no amount of assurance that this will be no Libya or Afghanistan, will persuade the American public to join this war.

Scooped by Neci Garrett
Scoop.it!

Obama Tests Limits of Power in Syrian Conflict

Obama Tests Limits of Power in Syrian Conflict | Neci'sGovernment Adventure | Scoop.it
President Obama’s approach to Syria is likely to create an important precedent in the often murky legal question of when presidents or nations may lawfully use military force.
Neci Garrett's insight:

Understanding that Syouria broke the law, it is still not our business to jump to the front line with our airstrikes and pitchforks. I also dont see any other country jumping to defense like so. We are up against a World War III if we continue with this plan.

more...
Tianna Kelly's curator insight, September 11, 2013 1:23 PM

I don't understand President Obama's statement that we must attack Syria because of U.S. national interests. What interests are these? Also, while Obama does legally have the right to launch a military attack on Syria without Congressional approval, the fact that public opinion says that we should not intervene, and that the U.S. is a supposed Democratic country, mean that he should not take it upon himself to act outside of public and Congressional approval. Otherwise, how is he any better than Assad?

Sammy Masri's curator insight, September 17, 2013 1:13 AM

I think Obama was facing all of this superficial, but ever-growing, pressure to do something about Syria, ANYTHING, as long as he just didn't sit idly by. Then, when he finally chose his only viable path (at the time), most people balked at the severity. Iraq and Afghanistan linger more than Kuwait, Kosovo, and Libya. Saving face became the only possible measure afterwards, and forget the actual politics, weapons, and lives at stake.

My personal opinion, of course.

Adriana Cruz's curator insight, January 18, 2014 12:31 PM

Events like this happen in hundreds of different countries yet the US has never gotten involved. Also, the law against chemical weapons is international, therefore, the United Nations should be dealing with this, not the US alone. Of course, the UN would never go for it seeing as how Russia is an ally of the Syrian government. more importantly the situation is lose, lose. We do not need to be involved in this fight, it's not ours.