QOTD: Congressman Jack Kingston
by digby
Win, win for the GOP:
A lot of people would like to stay on the sideline and say, ‘Just bomb the place and tell us about it later.’ It’s an election year. A lot of Democrats don’t know how it would play in their party, and Republicans don’t want to change anything. We like the path we’re on now. We can denounce it if it goes bad, and praise it if it goes well and ask what took him so long.
And hey, if the people get scared out of their wits with tales of Ninjas sneaking into their houses in the dead of night and executing them in their beds, well that's how it's done folks.
Not that anyone who follows the politics of national security didn't already know this. But it's always nice to have wingnut savants like Kingston out there making it crystal clear.(It's also why the warhawks are hyping the atrocity angle --- they want to make it hard for politicians not to vote for war. At least that's always been the pattern before.)
Here's Congressman Peter King saying it another way:
As a Republican, I do believe the president has the constitutional authority to take action now in Iraq and in Syria against ISIS. I believe as a matter of course, it's probably better for him to get Congressional approval, but I -- which I would certainly vote for. But I don't believe he needs it. And if that's going to delay what he wants to do, he should go ahead and just take action without waiting for Congress. This is too important to get this bogged down in a Congressional debate if the president does not believe the support is there.
If it is there, ideally he should get it. But I believe as commander-in-chief he is the absolute power to carry out these attacks.
Now, that tyrannical use of executive orders to delay some Obamacare regulations? That will not stand. War? Who wants to vote for war? It's risky. As Kingston says, let the president take the heat and if it goes bad, then you can blame him for it. Then it's all good
.