The administration made a judgment that there is no doubt that the Assad regime carried out the chemical attacks near Damascus on August 21st, and they announced that judgment to the world. Nonetheless, the British Parliament was not satisfied with the evidence. Or, at least, many members of parliament were unconvinced. Perhaps others simply didn’t want to get their country entangled in a civil war. But one thing is now clear, the case that has been presented to the public is not good enough. That puts the administration in a bad place, but they were hasty and they will now pay the price for that.
With news that President Obama could order unilateral strikes as soon as the United Nations weapons inspectors leave on Saturday, I’m concerned that the administration is getting ready to be hasty again. I hope they have some way of knowing what the inspectors are discovering about the nature of the chemical that was used, as well as the delivery system. We supposedly know a decent amount about what kinds of chemicals the Syrians have in their stockpiles, and we know what kind of artillery pieces they use. If we attack and then discover that neither the chemical agent nor the weaponry match what is in Syria’s inventory, we are going to look very bad.
I understand the importance of the principle the president is trying to uphold, and I’d like to be able to support him. But he’s way out on a limb right now. He doesn’t have support from the British, from NATO, from the United Nations, or from the Arab League. One reason is that people have difficulty believing that we can strike Syria in a very limited way and then walk away even as Assad remains in power and on the offensive on most fronts of the civil war. Another reason is the evidence presented so far is paltry.
The president wants to keep his word that the use of chemical weapons would be a game-changer and have severe consequences. I understand that. But patience is warranted here. With time, he can build a stronger case or avoid compounding an error if the administration’s initial judgments are wrong. If the UN inspectors provide evidence consistent with an attack by the regime, then most people will be satisfied that Assad deserves punishment. That’s the minimum prerequisite for an action that lacks all traditional modes of support.
Personally, I would rather sacrifice some of Obama’s credibility by doing nothing than by doing something in error or that leads to a deep morass. But, assuming that the administration feels compelled to keep its word and uphold the taboo on the use of chemical weapons, they still need to have a much better dossier than they’re presenting right now.
They need to relax a little bit. Don’t rush. If they are right, the case will get stronger.
With time, he can build a stronger case or avoid compounding an error if the administration’s initial judgments are wrong.
Right. We already have supposed “people in the know” saying we don’t know who used the chemical weapons. That’s a pretty damning statement. No one has answered the question of why Assad would use the weapons. He’s winning the war. He knows we’ve declared the use a red line. And re: the U.K., apparently some Cons even voted against idiot Cameron. What does that say?
that they can read a poll, and the public is unconvinced.
Also true.
UN General Secretary Ban Ki-moon asks Obama to cool his jets and give peace a chance.
Call me naive (the line forms that way), but this seeming haste is so uncharacteristic of Obama that I can’t help but think it is part of some massive head fake on the part of his administration, i.e., there will be repercussions, but not right away and not in the form of Tomahawk missiles.
t does seem like there’s more than meets the eye on their behavior here. It’s odd. If there’s one value this administration has pursued in foreign policy, it’s caution.
I don’t quite understand where the pressure for action is coming from, outside of people whose FP “advice” the administration would normally dismiss out of hand (e.g. McCain, Kristol, the other neo-cons, etc.).
Very strange.
The pressure comes from Obama’s superiors.
You need to rewrite the flow chart.
When JFK got popped fifty years ago the flow chart changed. Some Presidents are better cheerleaders for oil wars than others. It may appear that Dubya is a warmonger and Obama is dragging his feet, but being in the front of the parade doesn’t mean you drew up the parade route.
Once you realize what happened the pieces fit easily into place.
Sorry, but your explanation is just too paranoid for me to buy.
And that’s how they win.
Right, I’m a dupe. Hopefully someday I’ll wake up to the fact that all Presidents are completely powerless pawns of the totally malevolent national security state.
Well it wouldn’t surprise me if that was the case.
Your explanation has a kernel of truth, but you underestimate the president. Yes, I believe it is a head fake. A very wise response to the pressure. See my comment up thread.
I think your post here and comments in other threads don’t do a very good job drawing a distinction between two issues:
As you acknowledge briefly, it is entirely possible that the British public believes the answer to #1 is “Yes” and to #2 is “No.” I haven’t seen any polls, so I can’t read the British public’s mind. But whereas you seem to believe the vote against military action in Parliament indicates that the people are not satisfied with the evidence, I don’t think that has to be the case at all. They may very well believe that Assad gassed his own people and that nonetheless the British military should stay out of it.
I’m also curious to know what exactly you think is Obama’s mindset here. Surely you don’t believe that he’s trying to bamboozle the public into supporting a war on trumped up WMD charges. The man historically just doesn’t work that way. So if he says Assad used chemical weapons on his own people, is it reasonable to assume Obama actually believes it?
And if he does, then what is his purpose in talking about Syria the way he does? Is he trying to save face because of his “red line” comment? Does he genuinely believe something should be done because of the ban against chemical weapons? Or is he a dupe of the Military-Industrial Complex?
True.
Superficially, it reminds me of the Neocon con about WMD in Iraq. “Everybody” believed it, or pretended to, but its BS. Look behind this and you see the same cast of characters.
And where would the information come from? Just as in the former case, from US intelligence.
Rather than allowing himself to be pressured by them, I think Obama may be doing a Hail Mary pass to turn the tables. No way he’s going to be tricked into a new war. Even congress isn’t buying it. He knows the idea of military involvement in Syria has little support domestically and none internationally. It’s our own neocons and CIA that are going to wind up with egg on their faces, not Obama.
Can you game this out? How does Obama push this without getting egg all over himself?
By not pushing it very hard and subtly deferring to our allies and the American public (= congress, who are definitely hearing from their constituents on this). Particularly if evidence turns up that it was not Assad.
It will be embarrassing, but he has the excuse that this was what he was told by his wonderful intelligence services.
Using it as an opportunity for diplomacy with Russia and Iran was my first thought. They cannot be happy.
Sure, why not?
“And where would the information come from? Just as in the former case, from US intelligence”
Or Israeli intelligence.
Either way, best to assume that all the “information” is a lie intended to manipulate.
Whether it came from Israeli intelligence or not, it’s the responsibility of our own intelligence to vet information from foreign intelligence. It is absurd to think that the president would act directly on information from a foreign intelligence service. How would it have even got to him?
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/425446/Government-lose-vote-on-war-in-Syria-as-only-EIGHT-per-cent-
of-Brits-want-urgent-strikes
It seems that the overwhelming majority knows there is no clear evidence of Assad using chemical weapons, and even if the UN concludes he has, people are split even about british involvement.
Sound advice IMO. It seems like it is mostly the rightwing honor/shame imbeciles who are decrying the shameful “weakness” of Obama in not ordering precipitate bombing NOW NOW NOW. I have long thought his hasty comments on “red lines” and CW were risky and unneeded, and these now seem to be the real “problem”.
Assuming we don’t have a Bushco warscam operation going on here, there seems to be great controversy as to whether Team Assad is really embarking on an overt campaign of killing non-combatant civilians via CW, nor are they rolling up the unoppposed tanks and artillery to annihilate entire cities ala Qaddafi. That’s the sort of systemic massacre(s) which I assumed Obama had in mind, not this sort of one-off incident which their own intercept seem to indicate was unauthorized or at least unapproved. Unless the entire goal is simply to get the US Flyboyz into the regime change game.
If Assad is thinking of “winning” via massive systemic use of CW, there will be many more incidents to come and the world community can make its decision accordingly. The difficulty is that Russia has already decided there won’t be a UN/world response no matter what Assad pulls. But then let’s see what happens in that event in due time and the price Putin pays for Assad. There’s always time for war and massive military violence, there’s no “past due” date.
I believe I read somewhere that the “red line” comment was a mistake and he didn’t plan to make it. I don’t remember where I read it though, maybe it was here.
I suspect Obama’s motives are 3-fold.
1 – The international agreements that help to contain some forms of warfare are highly important in his view. Remember he worked with Lugar in the Senate on these issues. Here’s Lugar on Syria:
http://www.courierpress.com/news/2013/aug/25/risk-of-al-qaida-with-chemical-weapons-forcing/
Obama strongly believes there needs to be a consequence for using chemical weapons.
2 – In a conflict like this, weapons depots are not always so secure. Also it is fairly easy to get the chemicals for some weapons (delivery systems may be another matter).
3 – Most importantly, he is concerned about an escalation of chemical attacks from both sides. A cruise missile “shot across the bow” is an attempt to prevent that.
I think one thing that is going on with reactions, is that many people are “fighting the last war” in their minds. There was an outrageous headline in the NYT that made an absurd comparison between Iraq and Syria. (I didn’t read it – couldn’t get past the pay wall.)
Don’t get me wrong, I’m not endorsing any attack, no matter how limited. I’m just trying to understand the situation, answer questions – up to and including why chemical weapons still need to be banned (conventional weapons seem to be killing plenty of people too).
I only see bad options at this point.
It should be noted, Syria is not a signatory to that treaty and I still don’t see how if Assad did use them, it comes off as rebounding to his benefit even if the US does nothing.
IMHO, there is enough consensus in the world against chemical weapons that makes Syria’s lack of participation in the agreement nearly a non-issue. The non-participants are in red:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:CWC_Participation.svg
I think the concern is that Assad AND rebels might feel licensed to use them if no one responds.
It looks to me like Juan Cole on Aug. 27 found a plausible motive for Assad (if Assad used them in the recent incident this month).
See my link below. It looks like the rebels hane already used cw in may – but there was almost no reaction.
It’s about specificity and casualty numbers, IMHO. See my response to your other comment.
Absolutely right. The consensus is so massive against using them that I have little fear doing nothing would embolden their use in a meaningful way.
Damn this was scathing:
http://www.belgraviadispatch.com/2013/08/make_it_stop.html
Several days ago I wrote I was extremely conflicted on the question of punitive action in Syria, but no longer. I am now staunchly opposed having better detected an utter lack of true seriousness by the Obama Administration. The myriad leaks around what type of mission, the palpable trigger-happiness among some, the British debacle (they won’t even have their poodle this time, the cat-calls will ring!) and the `shot across the bow’ nonsense showcases an Administration unready for an invigorated course correction of its flailing Syria policy. Frankly, I am astonished by the lack of seriousness and mediocrity on display.
What going on is what you get after the West followed Bush into the Iraqi desert with Judy Miller looking for WMD that did not exist.
Time to lay the cards on the table before the Congress (yes, this dysfunctional Congress) and have them deal with reality for a change instead of just grandstanding. Call it a no-soundbite zone. A good presiding officer can do that.
Having R and D fingerprints on the consequences would be a very good thing for everybody concerned. It that could also split the caucus divisions within each party caucus, that would be even better.
There are a range of non-military things that could be done (if the focus is narrowed to non-proliferation of chemical weapons) before turning to military action. Ratification by Israel and Myanmar of the Chemical Weapons Convention and scheduling of an inventory would certainly be one constructive step. Having Angola, Egypt, and Somalia become signatories would be another. That would isolate North Korea and Syria as the only non-signatories. Few arms-control treaties have this coverage; in part, it is because chemical weapons turned out to not be the military game-changers they seemed a century ago. (Biological weapons have the same issues. Nuclear weapons are only because it takes enormous expenditures to develop a nuclear program, and even nuclear nonproliferation is moving forward as the US and Russia reduce their stockpiles.)
I find your 3rd paragraph very intriguing, both for the options you lay out and the side-note about bios/nukes.
But do you really think if Obama asked for Congressional approval that Republicans would use it as anything other than an opportunity to reject and humiliate the President?
Depend on how real it was for them and how forceful the presiding officer would be about irrelevancies. And who was presenting the information to Congress. Forcing to publicly deal with a real issue in details could force a change in tone. After all, we know there are divisions between the not-at-all isolationist Republicans, the do-it-now warmongers, and the shoulda-done-it-sooner hyperwarmongers on the Republican side. One way or the other one group of Republicans is going to have its fingerprints on the action.
True about the divisions. And I suppose even if he goes to Congress and is rejected, the GOP’s reaction will be evident to the public.
What I do not understand why the outrage now and not then.
Syrian rebels ‘used sarin gas’, says UN’s del Ponte – SYRIA – FRANCE 24
Could it be that accusing Assad now fits better into US plans than plaming the rebels?
“What I do not understand why the outrage now and not then.”
I think the main answer to that is for the more recent August attack there seems to be a much higher specificity about the medical evidence and there are higher numbers of dead cited. Also there seem to be more photos and videos on in the internet claiming to be about the August attack.
I haven’t researched deeply but the 38 seconds of del Ponte is the only bit I’ve seen about the May attacks – and I’ve seen it numerous times in blog threads. But I haven’t heard of any casualty numbers and even del Ponte’s remarks are quite vague.
Compare del Ponte’s remarks with the MSF post:
http://www.msf.org/article/syria-thousands-suffering-neurotoxic-symptoms-treated-hospitals-supported
-msf
Responsibility-to-protect, my ass.
Laurie Penny, New Statesman: There are too many bodies buried on Britain’s moral high ground
Kerry has laid out fairly a convincing case (to me) that the Assad regime is responsible for the attack:
“We know that for three days before the attack, the Syrian regime’s chemical weapons personnel were on the ground in the area, making preparations.
And we know that the Syrian regime elements were told to prepare for the attack by putting on gas masks and taking precautions associated with chemical weapons.
We know that these were specific instructions.
We know where the rockets were launched from, and at what time. We know where they landed, and when. We know rockets came only from regime-controlled areas and went only to opposition-controlled or contested neighborhoods.”
To me, this is compelling.
That is compelling rhetoric, not compelling evidence.
The yellowcake memo in 2002 was compelling rhetoric too. There was, it said, a letter from the President of Niger to Saddam Hussein about deliveries of yellowcake. The solid evidence, pushed by UK intelligence, was a transparent forgery. And then there was the leaked Downing Street minutes in which a UK intelligence chief talked of the US “fixing the facts around the policy.” The rhetoric that was used to make the argument about Iraq was equally vague and equally compelling.
This time the US intelligence community must show its work to the public in order to be credible. Unfortunately, that taints John Kerry’s credibility as well. There is the precedent of the good soldier Colin Powell’s performance at the UN.
On the other hand, in the case of the yellowcake fiasco, even at the time there were well-placed credible people (Joe Wilson for one) who contradicted the administrations line, pretty much at the same time. We’ll see if there is anyone who has or leaks contradictory information in this case.
It would be great if the intel community were to share more detailed information regarding the evidence, but I wouldn’t be surprised if they didn’t in order to protect their sources/methods. Even if they did it would also not surprise me if there were many who remained unconvinced. Personally I think their case is already strong, given the circumstances.
Wilson contradicted the facts three months after the war started (in June 2003). Those within the government who are unconvinced must either shut up or resign in order to make their case public. Wilson’s employment a envoy was over anyway, which mean that he did not have that agonizing decision. Just the one of breaking loyalty to someone who had appointed him.
This isn’t 2003 and this is not the Bush team. Nor has this President demonstrated a years-long desire to attack the target in question. Frankly, this “it-could-be-like-Iraq-therefore-it-IS-like-Iraq” line of argument is long exhausted of what slim merits it once had.
The US has now released its intel summary.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/164271878/White-House-Syria-Brief
Syria has chem weapons.
Syrian chem weapons expers spent the three days before the attack preparing something at Syria’s chem weapons facility.
Rocket launches and artillery fire was observed coming from Syrian military units.
Starting about 90 minutes later, thousands of civilians affected by nerve agent started arriving at hospitals, and videos began appearing on the internet.
Communications intercepts reveal ranking Syrian officials discussing a chem weapons attack.
Absent a US government-wide conspiracy to fake all this just so we can get involved in a war no one wants to get involved in in the first place, the conclusion is: The Syrian regime launched a chem weapons attack on its own civilians.
We can argue about what the correct response should be, but let’s remove the wool from our eyes. Assad’s tead did the deed.
And during the three days that the Syrian chem weapons experts were preparing those weapons, what exactly did the US (who knew of potential mass casualties) do?
This briefing is truthiness personified. Surface specificity in some places, but it fails to present any evidence to support its assertions by waving the “sources and methods” obfuscation wand. That fact undermines their quick dismissal of any other source of the attacks and their too quick assertion that the agent was Sarin.
The briefing also suffers by waving “open sources” around and then not citing them anywhere, even in an appendix.
The US has not made its case to enough members of the UK parliament, it has not made its case to a majority of the American public, and this document will not help it make its case. And blithely we sail on. That is a huge problem.
And it is an open secret now that some elements of the national security establishment have been pursuing regime change in Syria in the old-fashioned ways of the days of Allen Dulles. Likely they are as frustrated as they project Assad to be.
The more I see, the more it looks like the Bay of Pigs fiasco.
The idea that the world, the US public, and the Congress do not need to have convincing evidence is the first part of the fiasco. What the US should do is not make that misstep worse by meaningless and expensive action.
What exactly would convince you? Because to be honest, the impression I get is that a sworn statement from the very soldiers who fired the weapons would still be deemed insufficient in your eyes.
This a jump the shark moment.
This poster has exactly one consistency: Anything the US does or did is or was the wrong thing to do.
This poster does not engage in good faith discussion.
That poster has a long history of intelligent and insightful commentary on this blog, so I’m giving him the benefit of the doubt. I’m not going to make this personal.
I apologize. I was deeply annoyed to read his implications the US should have struck Syria simply because some sort of activity was detected at a Syrian chem weapons site. This after reading umpteen postings from him urging no strikes after a thousand=plus dead and a vastly larger pool of evidence.
If that in not intellectually dishonest I don’t know what is. But I should have waited a few minutes to cool down and composed a better response.
Did you read the statement that was released?
“We are highly confident that” but “sources and methods”
“We are highly confident that” but “sources and methods”
“We are highly confident because of open source evidence” without citing any of that evidence or the open source. Is the fact that the intelligence community reads the Washington Post or Le Monde or the MSF web site classified?
It takes less to convince me than to convince a skeptical international public, and any attempt to use this as a message that the US thinks CW is bad depends on convincing an international public. Like maybe the folks in Angola, Myanmar, Egypt, Israel and other countries that have not yet signed the CWC or ratified it or fully implemented their obligations under it.
One way or the other, Syria is going to be out of the CW business once its civil war comes to an end. It is other countries who are the target if the US indeed is all upset about CW use.
And there are some other issues. The fact that an area is held by rebel forces of one stripe or another does not prima facie mean the the civilians who are targets are also rebel supporters. The fact that the Assad government was shelling these neighborhoods does not prima facie mean that the civilians are rebel supporters. It is after all a civil war. Yet that is one of the arguments in the briefing.
It is a poor sales pitch. All that is missing is the ideas of suitcase chemical weapons being an imminent threat to America. I am assuming that the White House made the folks itching for war tone that one down.
You didn’t answer my question.
What evidence would convince you that the Assad regime used chemical weapons against its own people? What would it look like? Video? Recorded audio of the orders being given? A statement by Assad himself saying he did it? Right now, I know what’s not convincing you, but I don’t know where your standard of proof is.
I think it’s pretty straightforward. Independent evidence that the agent is indeed a chemical weapon agent known to be in the Syrian stockpile that traces it provenance to one of the reported attacks. The identity of the Syrian officials who ordered the attacks, date/time, location and the wording that proves it to be an order of a chemical weapons attack. Any subsequent messages reporting on the progress of the attack. (Note that the intelligence community says it has this evidence.) With such message evidence put in public to see if it can be knocked down as a forgery.
Identification of the delivery vehicles. Any information about the trajectories of them that shows the origin of fire.
Independent examination of alleged rebel false flag attacks that show why they could not have occurred.
Independent examination of charges that Qatar, Saudi Arabia, or both transferred chemical precursors or chemical weapons to rebels in Syria.
Independent examination of charges that Iranians or Russians had access to Syrian chemical weapons storage sites.
Independent examination of charges that the attacks were an Israeli or US false flag attack aimed at accomplishing regime change.
Notice the word “independent”. I don’t think that the US intelligence community is an honest broker with respect to Syria.
An ICC investigation of allegations of Syria’s use of chemical weapons would be an independent investigation and likely would look into all of these issues that would be part or any prosecution or a defense at the ICC.
Wow.
So activity is detected at a certain site. You now imply that Before that intel is confirmed or processed or deduced to know what it might mean the US should have struck.
But today, with the intel in hand confirmed double-checked and analyzed and over a thousand dead, NOW you resist doing anything.
You are not engaging in good faith.
Actually what I am saying is that those who claim three days notice should not engage in rhetoric that says “the US cannot stand idly by while ten [a hundred[ [a thousand] people are killed with chemical weapons.”
This is the limit to my point. The idle rhetoric about idleness is killing the spin.
That is not three days notice of an attack coming against civilians. That was three days observing some sort of activity at a chem weapons site. I doubt the staff there painted a sign on the roof stating “Hi US spy satelites and recon drones! We are in the process of preparing a nerve gas strike on several thousand civilians. Bomb this building new!”
Detecting activity a a chem weapons site could mean any of a variety of things other than preparations for an attack. It is highly speculative that single detail even reached Presidential ears before the event. Nor is that one form of intel conclusive enough to justify any sort of pre-emptive action. And what sort of pre-emptive actuion you have in mind other than striking the facility in question is a mystery.
G.W. Bush and scores of his staffers were on record as having a deep desire to go to war with Hussein’s Iraq for years before we invaded.
B.H. Obama and his staff have for two years of Syrian civil war have done nothing but resist getting involved in Syria. They have now gone on record as stating US intel concludes Assad’s team is behind this attack. This is compelling them to get involved in a war they have no desire to fight.
So either we have a vast Presidential-led conspiracy to fake all this intel, significant portions of which could be proven wrong by nations with their own satellite capabilities – specifically a nation whose name begins with the letter “R” – all to get involed in an unwanted war.
OR
The glaringly obvious answer is teh correct one: Assad’s team did the deed.
Occam does not need his razor to decide this case any more. Much duller tools are sufficient to make the call. Chalk this call up to Occam’s Anvil.
So can we stop pretending this was a rebel false-flag operation launched because the rebels have prefect foresight to “know” the US/Britain would intervene against Assad? (So much for half that perfect predictive ability, eh?) Can we stop wasting time and agree Team Assad is guilty?
Doing so still allows you or me or anyone else to argue against US involvement. But it’d stop wasting GD’ed time and would actually make bolster arguments against US involvement.
I don’t know , Tarheel, while I usually applaud your healthy skepticism I think this post is sliding into tinfoil hat territory. I trust the intel experts to get these kind of facts right. They intercepted communications, observed troop movements, and observed rocket fire. There’s not much room for misinterpretation. And to imagine that the admin is purposely misrepresenting the facts without any evidence seems a bit paranoid (in this case).
Have you not considered that it is the intel experts who are misrepresenting the situation. Or armchair world remakers in State and on the White House staff who want to leave their mark.
The administration might not be misrepresenting the facts, but it owes the international community and the public the decency of showing its work and not hiding behind “sources and methods”.
President Kennedy and Ambassador Adlai Stevenson showed their work in 1962 although it exposed how good US intelligence photography was (methods).
The administration (meaning the President, SoS and the NSC) work with what the intelligence community gives them based on its surveillance and US-friendly sources. We have seen from the Bay of Pigs, Kuwait and Iraq how unexamined information from folks interested in a certain result can turn out to be completely false.
Is the President purposely misrepresenting the facts? There is not evidence of that — yet. But a politician is a politician. Even George Washington and Jimmy Carter sometimes played fast and loose with the truth on occasion.
I do think you are sliding a little too far over here as well, but I agree with you about the questions raised by the intel.
We are after all talking about using military force here.
http://www.boston.com/news/politics/2008/specials/CandidateQA/ObamaQA/
I’ve seen this link pop up in a few blog posts here and there. It’s striking to see the evolution of Obama’s thought process on use of military force.
I’m not going to blame Congress for surrendering their role in war-making to the office of the President. That’s been a matter of course for awhile now.
It’s interesting that David Cameron took the case for attacking Syria to Parliament when he did not have to whereas Obama has a far greater obligation to consult Congress and yet likely will not for the second time. (Libya)
I don’t doubt that the Syrian regime might very well have used chemical weapons. I’m more concerned with why we’re yet again acting unilaterally to punish a nation for violating an international convention of which said nation is not even a signatory. Beyond that I believe the President is showing contempt for Congress and the will of the people by arrogating this right to declare war on any party at any time. There are limits to the power of the Presidency in this respect.
I’m not going to blame Congress for surrendering their role in war-making to the office of the President
Really? that’s unfortunate because that is exactly what we should be doing– and not just blaming Congress but demanding they adhere to our Constitution which makes it clear who has the power to declare and fund war.
Submitted for your consideration, the moral ambiguities of action/inaction:
http://www.stonekettle.com/2013/08/red-lines.html
Dontcha know. Wars are how America learns geography. From naming the relatives and where they fought.
“Count to ten”.. or maybe our POTUS needs a “time out”
for apparently forgetting about this– a reminder from
Congressman Walter Jones from North Carolina:
http://www.thenation.com/blog/175970/not-another-undeclared-war-call-congress-back-session#axzz2dXvp
hgZ0