If the U.S. Congress votes no to attack Syria, this will set dangerous new precedent. The U.S. President then will not be in command - he will no longer be the Commander in Chief of the U.S. Armed Forces.
So, let's review: Obama directs drone strikes in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Sudan without consulting Congress. In mid-June the Obama administration says it would begin providing aid to the Free Syrian Army - so where are the arms? The President declared that Assad must go - but Assad is still in power and apparently winning. Obama drew a chemical weapons thin red line and threatened an imminent military attack - but he didn't attack and the attack was repudiated in the U.K. Parliament. Then the President indicated that we needed the United Nations to back up the Syrian strikes - then Obama declared it unnecessary. Now the President says he wants the U.S. Congress to support the attack on Syria - but Obama said he didn't really need Congress's support. If Congress says no on the Syrian strikes, the President of the U.S. will go into battle with "his hands tied behind his back". Go figure. Read more: 'Congress looking at perilous precedent' by Michael Gerson The Washington Post, Friday September 6, 2013 'US drone 'kills Haqqani commander Sangeen Zadran' BBC News Asia: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-23983388 <http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-23983388>
