Pick one--can't have both

I guess Contendah has not heard about the NSA programs to spy on citizens of the USA. The populace has not heard about a lot of things Congress has done I am sure. I don't think we should interfere with Syria. Let them kill off each other and then we can go in and finish off the rest at our leasure.

I guess Contendah has not heard about the NSA programs to spy on citizens of the USA. The populace has not heard about a lot of things Congress has done I am sure. I don't think we should interfere with Syria. Let them kill off each other and then we can go in and finish off the rest at our leasure.

On the one hand, there are those critics of the President who say it is a big mistake to announce plans for military action against Syria in advance.  They assert that our attack should come as an unannounced surprise, in the style of certain past Israeli air raids on their hostile neighbors.

But some of these same critics insist that it would be unconstitutional for the President to take action against Syria without Congressional approval.

Here is the obvious catch, lest there be dimbulbs out there who can not figure it out for themselves.  Putting the matter before Congress is tantamount to announcing our intentions in advance, is it not?  In effect, that necessary Constitutional action becomes the announcement in advance of our intentions.

Pick one; can't have both.

+++

But it happens both ways, doesn't it?

Consider our congressionally approved and pre-announced wars with Iraq.  When Baghdad went dark, I'm fairly certain Saddam was surprised both times.