Obama says he can bomb without approval from Congress. He is right.
The White House insisted Monday that it was legally able to launch a strike on Syria without congressional approval even as it intensified its courting of lawmakers to support military action.
White House counsel Kathryn Ruemmler told the New York Times that a strike would be lawful under both domestic and international law. She told the paper that the president could strike because of the “important national interests” surrounding the use of chemical weapons, even without Congress or United Nations approval.
Ruemmler contended that while the Syria situation “may not fit under a traditionally recognized legal basis under international law,” it would nevertheless be “justified and legitimate.”
Reagan ordered the invasion of Grenada without Congressional approval.
Reagan ordered the bombing of Libya without Congressional approval.
Bush Sr. ordered the invasion of Panama without Congressional approval.
Clinton ordered cruise missiles all over the world without Congressional approval.
Clinton ordered the bombing of Serbia without Congressional approval.
Obama ordered the bombing of Libya without Congressional approval.
As long as it is shorter than 90 days, it is pretty hard to argue that the president needs approval from Congress to launch an attack.
Not needing approval to attack, however, is quite different from attacking after Congress has voted to prohibit an attack. Attacking without permission is authorized. Attacking against the will of Congress is very, very problematic.
So why in the hell did Obama paint himself into a corner by asking for Congressional approval? Did he think it was a sure thing? Why would he think that? Did he want to put the burden on Congress? Never happened. Democrats voted for the Iraq invasion yet the burden was 100% on Bush.
What the hell was this guy thinking when he took this thing to Congress?