The idea of attacking Syria doesn't make a lot of sense to me. I don't see where there is a key US interest at stake, nor have we been attacked. Chemical weapons have been used before. There have been civil wars in other nations before. There is a fair question as to who used chemical weapons which needs to be answered.

It's interesting how people's opinions sometimes vary on war powers depending on who sits in the big seat. Congress has only declared war five times in US history. On at least 100 occasions the President has ordered war/attacks without authorization from Congress. I think that was all wrong but let's not pretend this President is the first to do so or say he can. This "unitary executive" idea has defenders in all parties and across the political spectrum. Many people who would usually be pro-war are against it because they do not like this President. Some who are usually against war are for it because they like this President. I think war is too important to be a partisan issue.

I've been inundating my representative with emails/phone calls to not support the President on this. I think that's all anyone can do. Let your representative and Seantors know how you feel, organize, agitate and vote.

Several of the rebel groups include some pretty nasty people and I just don't see how the US makes things better by bombing. The rebels are not, from what I can see, reluctant warriors who yearn to put down their guns and return to moisture farms on Tattooine.