tac airlifter Posted August 31, 2013 Share Posted August 31, 2013 (edited) I'm totally confused by POTUSs speech today: basically "I have the authority to strike without congressional approval but I'm still going to seek congressional approval... But I might strike without it anyway." Edited August 31, 2013 by tac airlifter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tunes Posted September 1, 2013 Share Posted September 1, 2013 I'm totally confused by POTUSs speech today: basically "I have the authority to strike without congressional approval but I'm still going to seek congressional approval... But I might strike without it anyway." "The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation." --Barack Obama, Dec. 2007 oops 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
clouseau Posted September 1, 2013 Share Posted September 1, 2013 "The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation." --Barack Obama, Dec. 2007 oops .Just a minor oversight on his part. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pawnman Posted September 1, 2013 Share Posted September 1, 2013 "The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation." --Barack Obama, Dec. 2007 oops He meant OTHER presidents. Not himself. Since he's been a member of congress, he can vote himself approval. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fuzz Posted September 1, 2013 Share Posted September 1, 2013 "The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation." --Barack Obama, Dec. 2007 oops I guess he conveniently forgot about that when he stuck our nose in Lybia. http://freebeacon.com/pentagon-cant-afford-syria-operation-must-seek-additional-funds/ He may be going to them because he needs the money to execute he operation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TreeA10 Posted September 1, 2013 Share Posted September 1, 2013 It looks like he got himself in a bind with this "red line" comment. Insulting Britain over the last several years didn't help either. By lobbing the decision back to Congress, it appears he is back to voting "present" and thus not responsible for the outcome. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slander Posted September 1, 2013 Share Posted September 1, 2013 I'm totally confused by POTUSs speech today: basically "I have the authority to strike without congressional approval but I'm still going to seek congressional approval... But I might strike without it anyway." Nearly every analysis from credible agencies talks about how the "best case scenario" for the US is for this civil war to continue for a while. There are lots of reasons, but primarily it's because Arabs are killing other Arabs in an Arab country that doesn't have any big trade agreements with us. In the mean time, AQ, Hamas, Hezbollah, Iran, and a list of other shitheads around the world are getting the jollies off shooting at each other, and they aren't shooting at us. Plus, Israel is happy that they're busy fighting each other instead of lobbing rockets as frequently towards them. If we attack, it galvanizes the alliance between Iran, Hezbollah, and Hamas against us (and Israel again, by proxy) which could set Lebanon on fire.... So what do I think is Obama doing? Stalling, punting this to congress knowing it's probably going to fail (reference Britain) while still reserving the right to strike anyway (illegal? who knows for sure, congress didn't sue him yet), and reserving that right is keeping Assad's bunghole maybe just a little bit clenched. That doesn't take into consideration the fact that 100,000 Syrians are dead. That sucks, but...then there's the whole thing of "America, stop making yourselves into the world police!!!1!11!!!" "Hey, America, WTF how come you're not stopping this asshole from gassing his own people?!!1!1!!??/11!///??" Right? So it's easier for us to just talk tough and do nothing for a while until he goes all Chemical Assad again (which he will). Then maybe the Arab league will have had enough, and Russia / China will get backed into a corner. Then the UN will take care of it, right?! Wait a sec... MAGNUM! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fuzz Posted September 1, 2013 Share Posted September 1, 2013 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZqJfFrkzf8I Yeah lets help this guy, he only eats the hearts of his enemies, I mean who doesn't want to ally with people who never left the 1400s. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snooter Posted September 1, 2013 Share Posted September 1, 2013 F-it dude, let's go bowling... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
murdocjxx Posted September 2, 2013 Share Posted September 2, 2013 So what's going to happen when the resolution gets shot down in congress??? Then what? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xaarman Posted September 2, 2013 Share Posted September 2, 2013 We won't go, and Obama saves face that he wanted to act, but Congress wouldn't let him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waveshaper Posted September 2, 2013 Share Posted September 2, 2013 Today John Kerry stated: President Obama made a "Courageous Decision" to seek congressional approval on Syria. I think the President deserves a medal for this specific demonstration of courage in front of all Americans and the rest of the world. I can visualize the awards ceremony now. I imagine it will look something like when the Wizard of Oz presented the Cowardly Lion his Courage Medal and it will definitely complement his Nobel Peace Prize. Sorry no video clip of ceremony. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
clouseau Posted September 2, 2013 Share Posted September 2, 2013 (edited) Today John Kerry stated: President Obama made a "Courageous Decision" to seek congressional approval on Syria. I think the President deserves a medal for this specific demonstration of courage in front of all Americans and the rest of the world. I can visualize the awards ceremony now. I imagine it will look something like when the Wizard of Oz presented the Cowardly Lion his Courage Medal and it will definitely complement his Nobel Peace Prize. Sorry no video clip of ceremony. .That statement is probably aimed at those who have forgotten the contents within the Constitution. Edited September 2, 2013 by clouseau Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeloDude Posted September 2, 2013 Share Posted September 2, 2013 So what's going to happen when the resolution gets shot down in congress??? Then what? It will pass...might be a fairly close vote in the House, but there are enough establishment GOP'ers to offset the ones that will vote no, and then they'll call it 'bipartisan'. Senate won't be as close and will pass 75-25ish. I'm am curious to see how each specific member votes though...especially the ones that say we have no authority to attack a nation if they pose no risk in national security. This is where Rand Paul sets himself away from the others in the establishment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smokin Posted September 2, 2013 Share Posted September 2, 2013 As has been said before, it is unfortunate that civilians are dying in the crossfire, but there are no "good guys" to take the side of here. Both sides are evil. Help the refuge camps and let the monsters continue to kill each other. No good can come of helping either side. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hueypilot Posted September 2, 2013 Share Posted September 2, 2013 It seems like Obama is trying to appear better than his predecessor by "asking Congress", and I've heard others say "at least he's going to Congress", but he (and many Americans) forget that Iraq was approved by Congress overwhelmingly, to include a vote "For" by Mr Kerry. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StoleIt Posted September 2, 2013 Share Posted September 2, 2013 It seems like Obama is trying to appear better than his predecessor by "asking Congress", and I've heard others say "at least he's going to Congress", but he (and many Americans) forget that Iraq was approved by Congress overwhelmingly, to include a vote "For" by Mr Kerry. But....they were lied to by Bush about all the fictitious WMDs! DUH! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nsplayr Posted September 2, 2013 Share Posted September 2, 2013 I think it's more in comparison to Libya in particular and generally compared to other past conflicts that have gone on without Cngressional mandate ahead of time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThreeHoler Posted September 2, 2013 Share Posted September 2, 2013 I think it's more in comparison to Libya in particular and generally compared to other past conflicts that have gone on without Cngressional mandate ahead of time. What is this I don't even 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
disgruntledemployee Posted September 2, 2013 Share Posted September 2, 2013 It will pass...might be a fairly close vote in the House, but there are enough establishment GOP'ers to offset the ones that will vote no, and then they'll call it 'bipartisan'. Senate won't be as close and will pass 75-25ish. I'm am curious to see how each specific member votes though...especially the ones that say we have no authority to attack a nation if they pose no risk in national security. This is where Rand Paul sets himself away from the others in the establishment. Why any individual in Congress would vote for unilateral military action that does not serve our national security interests is beyond me. Some may rebutt, "But they used chemical weapons and that's not right." Fine, show me the right side. I'm pretty sure we're already at war with al qaeda and we HATE hezbollah. Again, show me our national security interest. "But the President said there is a red line and now we have to do something or else we look weak." So the fuck what. The Prez was looking to look tough, made some bullshit statement, and now he's being served a shit sandwich. Eat the sandwich, talk about your golf game, and how you're looking forward to basketball season. Oh, don't forget to add that dragging our nation into another war is not what Americans want right now, chemicals or not. If you want military action, get a coalition of many nations. If it doesn't include Jordan, Turkey and Israel, then drop it. Those are three nations with real national security interests with respect to Syria. Perhaps even include Iraq. Is war or some form of military action in the middle east for 23 years enough yet? Out 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slackline Posted September 2, 2013 Share Posted September 2, 2013 If you want military action, get a coalition of many nations. ? Screw that noise. Even in a coalition, it doesn't directly serve our nation's interest. We don't need to get involved. They hate us over there, and would only tolerate us long enough to benefit from our bombs and money. Then, back to hating Americans as usual... Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
disgruntledemployee Posted September 2, 2013 Share Posted September 2, 2013 Screw that noise. Even in a coalition, it doesn't directly serve our nation's interest. We don't need to get involved. They hate us over there, and would only tolerate us long enough to benefit from our bombs and money. Then, back to hating Americans as usual... Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD Doesn't mean we need to be a part of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Day Man Posted September 2, 2013 Share Posted September 2, 2013 (edited) Screw that noise. Even in a coalition, it doesn't directly serve our nation's interest. We don't need to get involved. They hate us over there, and would only tolerate us long enough to benefit from our bombs and money. Then, back to hating Americans as usual... Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD Doesn't mean we need to be a part of it. too many ? Edited September 2, 2013 by day man Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slackline Posted September 3, 2013 Share Posted September 3, 2013 Doesn't mean we need to be a part of it. Uh, isn't that what I just said? Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drewpey Posted September 3, 2013 Share Posted September 3, 2013 Toolbags making political statements in uniform become propaganda when marines.com was temporarily hacked... ttp://i.imgur.com/bijooSN.jpg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now