Last week, the British Parliament declined to support Prime Minister David Cameron’s call for joining a military action against Syria — an effort to punish the regime for its alleged use of chemical weapons against its own citizens.
Afterwards, asked on the floor of the House of Commons to confirm that he would not use force against Syria under “royal prerogative,” Cameron assured his country that, despite his strong belief
in the need for a tough response to the use of chemical weapons … I also believe in respecting the will of this House of Commons. It is very clear tonight that … the British Parliament reflecting the views of the British people does not want to see British military action. I get that. And the government will act accordingly.
How refreshing for a national legislative body to actually reflect the interests of the people, and for the government to abide by the will of the people. Perhaps this positive example from the Brits helped convince President Obama to seek congressional approval for the military strike he urges.
Process is important and, though Congress doesn’t do much of a job of representing us, I applauded the president’s decision.
Why the past tense? Because Time magazine reports that “Obama’s aides made clear that the President’s search for affirmation from Congress would not be binding. He might still attack Syria even if Congress issues a rejection.”
Yesterday on CNN, Secretary of State John Kerry said President Obama “has the right to do this no matter what Congress does.”
The Brits have authentic citizen-controlled government. Is ours just for show?
This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.
7 replies on “Acting Accordingly”
I personally think the belated attempt for congressional approval from Obama and company was in response to a few democrats mentioning the words ‘impeachable offense’. Representative government in the U.S. ended when Washington decided the rest of us don’t know enough and aren’t smart enough to decide issues for ourselves.
.… The Brits have authentic citizen-controlled government. Is ours just for show …?
You mean for show, just like the “Democrats” every war? Including that whose magnificent allied victories, effectively — and in two major theaters — in 1945, the treasonous Roosevelt’s fascistic, Soviet-agent-run, “administration” ceded — along with millions of repatriated-against-their-will Russian prisoners of war and all of Eastern Europe — to the mass-murderer, Stalin? And to his “Marshall Plan.”
And every one of that gang’s many wars since!
You mean for show** like all of those?
(**And to feed the “Democrats’:” Kennedy’s & Gore’s and Kohn-Kerry’s and Hammer’s et al Military-Industrial-Complex Crime Families!)
Turkish security forces, searching the homes of Syrian rebels, the Al Nusfra faction of of Al Qaida in May of this year, found a 2kg cylinder of sarin gas. Not widely reported in the US media. Also not widely reported was that the source of that sarin gas was tracked to be from Saudi security chief, Prince Bandar bin Sultan. Not clear where HE got it since Saudi Arabia is not known to be manufacturing this.
Note to Brian-
Was it not even more treasonous that FDR campaigned on the precept that he would absolutely keep us out of the war while he joined a cartel with the British that locked Japan out of access to nearly all available raw materials and energy supplies in the Pacific theater? At the time they attacked, they had less than 9 months of fuel left in the whole country. He knew they would have little choice.
Additional treasonous activity, when the US was informed that the Japanese fleet had set sail to attack, FDR refused to notify Pearl Harbor via emergency calls that this was potentially pending lest any Japanese spies notice the different communication and warn their fleet to stand down. He sent the warning via regular office communication to ensure that no one noticed any different routine. It did not get there in time. All those folks at Pearl Harbor died so that he could be sure that the attack came off.
Being in that major war gave him a pass in history from being accountable for the massive failure of his progressive economic policies.
To Brian & Drrik
NOT TO MENTION THAT –AFTER IN THE WAR – HE GAVE DIRECT ORDERS TO EISENHOWER – WHO WAS COMMANDER IN CHIEF — NOT TO BOMB THE GERMAN RAILROAD TRACKS.
This could have saved thousands, perhaps millions of lives of innocents from Hitler’s death camps, and soldiers in combat.
Not to mention his not allowing THE ST LOUIS TO DOCK, WITH REFUGEES, AND PRESSURING ( REALLY, FORCING) CUBA, NICARAGUA (UNDER SOMOZA) AND THE DOMINICAN REPUBLIC (UNDER TRUJILLO) NOT TO TAKE IN ANY MORE REFUGEES? FROM A CRAZED KILLER
Above commentary would be a good history lesson and hopefully a wake up call for so many of the people screaming for a war. There are usually many layers and much duplicity surrounding these terrible situations. We are far from knowing the truth…IMO
Lynn ( and everybody else)– there is an excellent site/blog http://www.jihadwatch.org (or .com ‑not sure),.
Anyhow, THERE IS A STRONG POSSIBILITY THAT OTHER TERRORISTS DID THE CHEMICAL WEAPONS ATTACK-the super fanatical terrorists upset at the not so fanatical terrorists.
THE UN ONLY SAID THAT CHEMICAL WEAPONS WERE USED.
NOT WHO USED THEM.
Some of the doctors and residents said it was NOT ASSAD’S PEOPLE – even some rebels said so.
I WOULD PROPOSE – ANYTIME, UNLESS THE US IS ATTACKED (LIKE 911) ‑OR AMERICAN INTERESTS ABROAD – THAT CONGRESS OR THE PRES. WANT TO GO TO WAR, THEY, THEIR SPOUSES AND THEIR CHILDREN HAVE TO GO FIRST. NOT LIKE NAM-VIRTUALLY NO PROFESSIONAL ATHLETE (LYNN SWANN WAS AN EXCEPTION-AND I BELIEVE HE VOLUNTEERED) NOR CHILD OF A SENATOR OR CONGRESSMAN SAW REAL COMBAT. (Gore was in a headquarters unit, safely in Saigon; probably saw many bar fights, and no enemy action). That would end some of these yahoo anal pore gun happy slime we call our elected leaders.