Speaking just now in the Rose Garden, President Obama insisted he has the authority to launch a military strike on Syria, and informs us he has already decided to do so. But he says he will seek congressional authorization anyway because that's better for our democracy or something.
Two questions:
What does Obama think he is going to accomplish with a limited military strike with no boots on the ground? He acknowledged "we cannot resolve the underlying conflicts in Syria with our military." OK, so then what is this strike going to do? Whatever you think of the Iraq War, it made a difference. We didn't just lob a few cruise missiles to send some sort of a message. We got rid of Saddam Hussein. Things were different as a result of what we did. What is going to be different in Syria if Obama launches - as an unnamed aide supposedly told the Los Angeles Times - a strike "just muscular enough not to be mocked"?
If Obama thinks he has the authority to strike Syria without congressional authorization, where exactly does he think that authority comes from? And if he doesn't need their permission, does that mean he reserves the right to strike anyway if they say no?
