Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 10-27-2019, 03:09 PM
Velocity is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 15,617

Fear of Congressional D's leaking Baghdadi raid, realistic?


CNN article: Trump refused to inform Congressional Democrats such as Pelosi or Schumer about the al-Baghdadi raid before it happened, due to fear that the D's would leak it to the media beforehand and get the raid aborted.


https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/27/polit...aid/index.html



Now, is this really a realistic fear? If the idea is that loose lips sink ships, (carelessness), that's one thing, but Trump seemed concerned the D's would intentionally get the raid scuttled. Maybe he is trying to jab the D's out of spite, but would Congressional Ds have really wilfully leaked it?
  #2  
Old 10-27-2019, 03:30 PM
bobot's Avatar
bobot is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Chicago-ish
Posts: 9,399
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
...
Now, is this really a realistic fear? ...
Seriously?
No, it's not.
  #3  
Old 10-27-2019, 03:32 PM
jasg is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Upper left hand corner
Posts: 6,207
I think that the 'Gang of Eight', including the Democrats, have quite a bit of experience keeping foreknowledge of military operations confidential.

So, no - I don't think it was a legitimate concern.
  #4  
Old 10-27-2019, 03:39 PM
Ravenman is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 26,927
Quote:
Originally Posted by jasg View Post
I think that the 'Gang of Eight', including the Democrats, have quite a bit of experience keeping foreknowledge of military operations confidential.

So, no - I don't think it was a legitimate concern.
The Gang of Eight successfully covered up Russian efforts to elect Trump when they were informed of them in the summer of 2016, so I’d say they know how to keep a secret.

Last edited by Ravenman; 10-27-2019 at 03:39 PM.
  #5  
Old 10-27-2019, 03:40 PM
Aspenglow's Avatar
Aspenglow is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Oregon
Posts: 4,220
Coming from Trump, that's rich. The man who gives away classified information to the Russians -- while in the Oval Office, no less.

What offensive questions you have posed, OP.
  #6  
Old 10-27-2019, 03:41 PM
Northern Piper is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: The snow is back, dammit!
Posts: 29,937
I think it's more likely Trumpian projection: he assumes people will do what he would do in that situation.
__________________
"I don't like to make plans for the day. If I do, that's when words like 'premeditated' start getting thrown around in the courtroom."
  #7  
Old 10-27-2019, 03:49 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 42,416
He told Putin before he told Pelosi. So.....
  #8  
Old 10-27-2019, 03:53 PM
Velocity is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 15,617
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
He told Putin before he told Pelosi. So.....
The reason probably being to deconflict in advance in case Russian forces detected the Americans. Still a terrible decision though.
  #9  
Old 10-27-2019, 04:00 PM
Jophiel's Avatar
Jophiel is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Chicago suburbia
Posts: 19,457
No, it's not realistic. But it IS petty and self-aggrandizing and that fits right into the president's wheelhouse.
  #10  
Old 10-27-2019, 04:13 PM
Chingon is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: the hypersphere
Posts: 680
Yes, liberals are secretly ISIS sympathizers who actually hate America and our freedoms.

Does that help you out OP?
  #11  
Old 10-27-2019, 04:29 PM
Velocity is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 15,617
The article notes that Mitch McConnell (R) would not comment on whether he was briefed beforehand or not. We can take that however we like to interpret.


It's worth noting that Boehner, House Republican leader, was briefed on the bin Laden raid before it happened, in 2011.

Last edited by Velocity; 10-27-2019 at 04:30 PM.
  #12  
Old 10-27-2019, 04:34 PM
bobot's Avatar
bobot is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Chicago-ish
Posts: 9,399
Did Trump state that Mitch was prone to leaking? No, he didn't.
Didyou yourself ask if Mitch might leak the intel? No, you didn't.
Did you just ask if it was reasonable to wonder if the Democrats would? Fuck yeah you did.
*checks forum*
Nevernind.
  #13  
Old 10-27-2019, 06:42 PM
Justy5 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Posts: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chingon View Post
Yes, liberals are secretly ISIS sympathizers who actually hate America and our freedoms.

Does that help you out OP?
Not true! And very mean. I'm a liberal. I can't stand this country at times but I don't support any terrorists from overseas or our terrorists here in America.
  #14  
Old 10-27-2019, 06:58 PM
DrFidelius's Avatar
DrFidelius is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Miskatonic University
Posts: 12,548
Quote:
Originally Posted by Justy5 View Post
Not true! And very mean. I'm a liberal. I can't stand this country at times but I don't support any terrorists from overseas or our terrorists here in America.
Chignon doesn't believe this either.
He just wanted to make sure the OP had all their Fox News Official Talking Points covered.
__________________
The opinions expressed here are my own, and do not represent any other persons, organizations, spirits, thinking machines, hive minds or other sentient beings on this world or any adjacent dimensions in the multiverse.
  #15  
Old 10-27-2019, 07:00 PM
Ravenman is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 26,927
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
The reason probably being to deconflict in advance in case Russian forces detected the Americans.
Agreed, and this boils down to:

Trump told Putin in order to deconflict the airspace to avoid a regrettable mishap; and
Trump didn't tell Pelosi because fuck you that's why.
  #16  
Old 10-27-2019, 07:11 PM
guizot is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: An East Hollywood dingbat
Posts: 8,777
Trump didn't tell them solely so that he could say that he didn't, afterwards. It's that simple.

Everything--EVERYTHING--Trump does is theatrics, because his ONLY concern is his image, which is his tool for scamming. He was a fake business person, putting on an act, and he's a fake president, putting on an act. Once you recognize this, you don't have to waste much time debating or discussing him. Period.
  #17  
Old 10-27-2019, 07:14 PM
Velocity is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 15,617
I also want to question the need to brief anyone in Congress on an upcoming military raid anyway. The Congressional D's and R's hold no veto power over such a raid. There is nothing they could say or do that would help the military operation. The only thing they could possibly do is harm it by leaking it, intentionally or unintentionally. Sure, they could provide advice or input, but that's what the military and intelligence community is there for.
  #18  
Old 10-27-2019, 07:24 PM
bobot's Avatar
bobot is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Chicago-ish
Posts: 9,399
*produces quill*
Concern noted.
  #19  
Old 10-27-2019, 07:26 PM
Ravenman is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 26,927
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
I also want to question the need to brief anyone in Congress on an upcoming military raid anyway. The Congressional D's and R's hold no veto power over such a raid. There is nothing they could say or do that would help the military operation. The only thing they could possibly do is harm it by leaking it, intentionally or unintentionally. Sure, they could provide advice or input, but that's what the military and intelligence community is there for.
They aren't briefed to give advice. They're briefed because you don't want the small group of congressional leaders who exercise the greatest power over defense issues aren't treated like untrustworthy gadflies, as they will surely not forget it. Which is exactly how Trump has treated them. Someone like Lindsey Graham has no business being briefed, that's for sure.

In other news, Trump may have staged a photo of him "overseeing" the raid.

https://www.newsweek.com/obama-photo...olfing-1468012

Last edited by Ravenman; 10-27-2019 at 07:27 PM.
  #20  
Old 10-28-2019, 05:30 AM
Bryan Ekers's Avatar
Bryan Ekers is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Montreal, QC
Posts: 59,350
Does anybody take Trump's word on anything at this point? What is this; fiftieth time burnt, not yet shy?
__________________
Don't worry about the end of Inception. We have top men working on it right now. Top. Men.
  #21  
Old 10-28-2019, 07:03 AM
Chronos's Avatar
Chronos is offline
Charter Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 85,446
I think the raid was simple:

1: Attack a bunch of Middle Easterners.
2: Pick through the bodies to find who was most prominent among those killed.
3: Declare that that person, whoever it was, was the "leader of ISIS" so he can brag about it.

That's why Trump never talked about al-Bagdadi before. And that's why he didn't tell anyone about the raid beforehand, either: Because he didn't know who the target was going to end up being. And never mind that Trump had already personally defeated every last member of ISIS, and that's why he told Turkey to attack the Kurds.
  #22  
Old 10-28-2019, 10:04 AM
HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 14,825
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
I also want to question the need to brief anyone in Congress on an upcoming military raid anyway. ....
This was my first thought. It might be the polite or nice thing to do, but President Trump and Pelosi seem to be well beyond niceties, so the next question is: Is he required to brief them? I don't know for certain, but I don't think so. This happened in Syria where we've been conducting military operations for years. Pakistan was a rather different beast.
  #23  
Old 10-28-2019, 10:17 AM
Velocity is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 15,617
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronos View Post
I think the raid was simple:

1: Attack a bunch of Middle Easterners.
2: Pick through the bodies to find who was most prominent among those killed.
3: Declare that that person, whoever it was, was the "leader of ISIS" so he can brag about it.

That's why Trump never talked about al-Bagdadi before. And that's why he didn't tell anyone about the raid beforehand, either: Because he didn't know who the target was going to end up being.
Say, remember our recent thread, Why is the Right so credulous when it comes to conspiracy theories?

Not that your one example here counterbalances it all, but this - along with a lot of comments I've seen on CNN's Facebook yesterday - illustrate that many liberals are perfectly willing to believe something outlandish if it fits a narrative.
  #24  
Old 10-28-2019, 10:27 AM
LAZombie is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Posts: 327
I truly believe that liberals will do anything to hurt Trump including sabotaging a mission to kill terrorists.
  #25  
Old 10-28-2019, 10:31 AM
TriPolar is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: rhode island
Posts: 41,124
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
Say, remember our recent thread, Why is the Right so credulous when it comes to conspiracy theories?

Not that your one example here counterbalances it all, but this - along with a lot of comments I've seen on CNN's Facebook yesterday - illustrate that many liberals are perfectly willing to believe something outlandish if it fits a narrative.
He's pointing out there is no reason to believe Trump because of his belief in conspiracy theories and his outright lying. Liberals are not willing to believe the outlandish stories from Trump and his Republican stooges so it's necessary to consider the most likely explanation for an event instead of their lies.
  #26  
Old 10-28-2019, 10:40 AM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm is online now
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 62,892
Quote:
Originally Posted by LAZombie View Post
I truly believe that liberals will do anything to hurt Trump including sabotaging a mission to kill terrorists.
Posting this right after Velocity-what a sweet burn.
  #27  
Old 10-28-2019, 11:04 AM
QuickSilver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 19,242
Quote:
Originally Posted by LAZombie View Post
I truly believe that liberals will do anything to hurt Trump including sabotaging a mission to kill terrorists.
You're wrong and your belief system is not based on evidence.
__________________
St. QuickSilver: Patron Saint of Thermometers.
  #28  
Old 10-28-2019, 11:36 AM
Cheesesteak's Avatar
Cheesesteak is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Lovely Montclair, NJ
Posts: 13,729
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
I also want to question the need to brief anyone in Congress on an upcoming military raid anyway. The Congressional D's and R's hold no veto power over such a raid. There is nothing they could say or do that would help the military operation. The only thing they could possibly do is harm it by leaking it, intentionally or unintentionally. Sure, they could provide advice or input, but that's what the military and intelligence community is there for.

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Constitution
The Congress shall have Power To
<snip>
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces
Did I miss the meeting where this part of the Constitution was eliminated? I get that the whole declaring war thing is passe, but there was always supposed to be a check and balance there, with Congress having the power to rein in the CinC. Kind of hard to do that when he's keeping you in the dark.

Anyway, this move was 100% spite, 0% reality.
  #29  
Old 10-28-2019, 11:40 AM
chappachula is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 5,775
Quote:
Originally Posted by Northern Piper View Post
I think it's more likely Trumpian projection: he assumes people will do what he would do in that situation.
This is probably the right answer.
...and it's a great explanation for the way Trump's mind works. (i.e. like a 9 year old child. )
  #30  
Old 10-28-2019, 12:52 PM
HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 14,825
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cheesesteak View Post
Did I miss the meeting where this part of the Constitution was eliminated? I get that the whole declaring war thing is passe, but there was always supposed to be a check and balance there, with Congress having the power to rein in the CinC. Kind of hard to do that when he's keeping you in the dark.

Anyway, this move was 100% spite, 0% reality.
I'm pretty sure that was covered back in 2001, when Congress passed the AUMF:


Last edited by HurricaneDitka; 10-28-2019 at 12:52 PM.
  #31  
Old 10-28-2019, 01:14 PM
Ravenman is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 26,927
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
I'm pretty sure that was covered back in 2001, when Congress passed the AUMF:
Do you believe that the 2001 AUMF, which authorizes war against those who carried out the 9/11 attacks, and that those who "planned," "aided" or "harbored" them (note past tense), should apply to terrorist groups that did not exist at the time of the attacks?

I'm interested in the answer because you seem to be very precise in interpreting words used in gun control laws.

Last edited by Ravenman; 10-28-2019 at 01:17 PM.
  #32  
Old 10-28-2019, 01:18 PM
PastTense is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 7,808
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cheesesteak View Post
Did I miss the meeting where this part of the Constitution was eliminated? I get that the whole declaring war thing is passe, but there was always supposed to be a check and balance there, with Congress having the power to rein in the CinC. Kind of hard to do that when he's keeping you in the dark.
The U.S. policy of going after and killing terrorists has been discussed and approved by Congress. Since the general policy has been approved there is no reason to discuss each specific instance where it happens.
  #33  
Old 10-28-2019, 01:18 PM
Cheesesteak's Avatar
Cheesesteak is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Lovely Montclair, NJ
Posts: 13,729
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
I'm pretty sure that was covered back in 2001, when Congress passed the AUMF:
With the AUMF, Congress gave authorization to the President to take military actions against Terrorists.

The President now claims that he can't trust Congress with knowing when military actions are taken?

It is Congress who gave him this authorization in the first place, and Congress still retains responsibility for raising and providing for an Army and Navy, and making rules to govern the use of them.

Again, it's spite, not reality driving this choice.
  #34  
Old 10-28-2019, 01:21 PM
Velocity is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 15,617
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cheesesteak View Post
With the AUMF, Congress gave authorization to the President to take military actions against Terrorists.

The President now claims that he can't trust Congress with knowing when military actions are taken?

It is Congress who gave him this authorization in the first place, and Congress still retains responsibility for raising and providing for an Army and Navy, and making rules to govern the use of them.

Again, it's spite, not reality driving this choice.
I recall reading somewhere that it's an intelligence axiom that the likelihood of a secret being leaked is the square of the number of people in on the secret.

The benefits of briefing Congress are low (what, exactly, are the benefits?) but the possible drawbacks are extreme (the scuttling of the entire mission, should it go public)
  #35  
Old 10-28-2019, 01:31 PM
HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 14,825
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
Do you believe that the 2001 AUMF, which authorizes war against those who carried out the 9/11 attacks, and that those who "planned," "aided" or "harbored" them (note past tense), should apply to terrorist groups that did not exist at the time of the attacks?

I'm interested in the answer because you seem to be very precise in interpreting words used in gun control laws.
No, *I* don't believe it should, but presidents of both parties, prior to President Trump, have cited that AUMF as justification for military operations in more than a dozen countries, including Obama using it to fight ISIS in Syria, so it's pretty clear that my belief on the matter doesn't hold much sway. To flip things around now and say "but we didn't authorize that" when pretty much everyone from both parties has looked the other way for the last 18 years would be transparently hypocritical (which is about what I expect from the dems). Furthermore, to make this argument (that "we didn't authorize that") while at the same time they're trying to excoriate President Trump for pulling back from military deployments in Syria is ham-fisted in the extreme.
  #36  
Old 10-28-2019, 01:42 PM
Cheesesteak's Avatar
Cheesesteak is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Lovely Montclair, NJ
Posts: 13,729
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
The benefits of briefing Congress are low (what, exactly, are the benefits?) but the possible drawbacks are extreme (the scuttling of the entire mission, should it go public)
The benefits are in not cementing one's persona as a petty thin-skinned man-child with a rather tenuous grasp of reality.

At least Trump informed his supervisor of what he was planning.
  #37  
Old 10-28-2019, 01:55 PM
Ravenman is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 26,927
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
No, *I* don't believe it should, but presidents of both parties, prior to President Trump, have cited that AUMF as justification for military operations in more than a dozen countries, including Obama using it to fight ISIS in Syria, so it's pretty clear that my belief on the matter doesn't hold much sway. To flip things around now and say "but we didn't authorize that" when pretty much everyone from both parties has looked the other way for the last 18 years would be transparently hypocritical (which is about what I expect from the dems). Furthermore, to make this argument (that "we didn't authorize that") while at the same time they're trying to excoriate President Trump for pulling back from military deployments in Syria is ham-fisted in the extreme.
When someone raises point "A," why do you raise the counter-argument to point "A" that you don't actually agree with?

This is puzzling behavior. What do you think you are achieving by concealing your own views while raising these points? To put a finer point on it, are you just sticking it to the libs even in cases where you personally agree with the libs?
  #38  
Old 10-28-2019, 01:56 PM
Ravenman is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 26,927
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cheesesteak View Post
With the AUMF, Congress gave authorization to the President to take military actions against Terrorists.
Not all terrorists. You have to admit, it didn't cover bombing the KKK. And if you look at the text of the AUMF, it's an extremely thin case that it covers a terrorist group created more than a decade after 9/11.
  #39  
Old 10-28-2019, 02:00 PM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm is online now
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 62,892
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
When someone raises point "A," why do you raise the counter-argument to point "A" that you don't actually agree with?

This is puzzling behavior. What do you think you are achieving by concealing your own views while raising these points? To put a finer point on it, are you just sticking it to the libs even in cases where you personally agree with the libs?
This. I can't see any reason to do the "Both Sides Do It!" dance unless you are trying to excuse behavior.
  #40  
Old 10-28-2019, 02:08 PM
TriPolar is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: rhode island
Posts: 41,124
It's Trump who shouldn't have been told about the raid.

Quote:
President Donald Trump’s announcement of the death of ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi revealed a slew of sensitive details about the secret military operation that could imperil future raids, special operations and intelligence, veterans fear.
  #41  
Old 10-28-2019, 02:10 PM
Cheesesteak's Avatar
Cheesesteak is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Lovely Montclair, NJ
Posts: 13,729
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
I recall reading somewhere that it's an intelligence axiom that the likelihood of a secret being leaked is the square of the number of people in on the secret.
How many members of the Russian Government were briefed on this mission?
  #42  
Old 10-28-2019, 02:11 PM
HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 14,825
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
When someone raises point "A," why do you raise the counter-argument to point "A" that you don't actually agree with?

This is puzzling behavior. What do you think you are achieving by concealing your own views while raising these points? To put a finer point on it, are you just sticking it to the libs even in cases where you personally agree with the libs?
I'm not "concealing" my own views. I'm relaying factually-correct information, even though I may disagree with the philosophical underpinnings of it. The AUMF has been cited (and widely accepted) as justification for our military actions against ISIS for as long as they've existed. Likewise, if someone asked "how is abortion legal?" I'd point them to Roe v. Wade even though I personally find that decision deeply flawed.

That libs suddenly have a new-found interest in Congress authorizing military actions that they were disinterested in while Obama was president doesn't change any of the above. They're still hypocrites.
  #43  
Old 10-28-2019, 02:21 PM
Cheesesteak's Avatar
Cheesesteak is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Lovely Montclair, NJ
Posts: 13,729
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
That libs suddenly have a new-found interest in Congress authorizing military actions that they were disinterested in while Obama was president doesn't change any of the above. They're still hypocrites.
You just made this nonsense up. Nobody is arguing that Congress needs to individually authorize these types of actions. While one can argue that the AUMF is narrowly constructed, nobody in Congress has argued to take this power away from the president.

There's a world of difference between demanding pre-authorization, and demanding a modicum of respect for Congress, given their Constitutional duties regarding the use of our armed forces.

However, feel free to explain to me why the Russian government can be trusted with our secrets.
  #44  
Old 10-28-2019, 02:31 PM
guizot is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: An East Hollywood dingbat
Posts: 8,777
Quote:
Originally Posted by TriPolar View Post
As I said above, as far as Trump is concerned, the only purpose of this raid was to provide him with theatrics to promote himself. That's why he was jabbering on about the details as though he were describing the movie of the week, (instead of leaving the details for the Pentagon to describe, as is the usual custom). That's all he cares about--putting on a show, because that's the only level of cognition his base supporters are able to process.
  #45  
Old 10-28-2019, 02:40 PM
Ravenman is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 26,927
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
I'm not "concealing" my own views. I'm relaying factually-correct information, even though I may disagree with the philosophical underpinnings of it. The AUMF has been cited (and widely accepted) as justification for our military actions against ISIS for as long as they've existed. Likewise, if someone asked "how is abortion legal?" I'd point them to Roe v. Wade even though I personally find that decision deeply flawed.
Of course you're concealing your disagreement with what you're posting. There's been a thousand times on this board where I and others have stated, "Well these people say this, and this is what they are thinking, but of course I think they are full of it." It takes like three seconds for anyone to clarify they are writing something they don't actually believe.

You don't do that. Why?

Quote:
That libs suddenly have a new-found interest in Congress authorizing military actions that they were disinterested in while Obama was president doesn't change any of the above. They're still hypocrites.
So, uh, which libs actually raised the issue of a new AUMF for Syria? I'll give you a hint, one of them had the initials BHO and another guy with the initials MM refused to hold a vote on it.

Also, pop quiz: how many times have libs tried to end the 2001 AUMF because it was overbroad? (I'm really just waiting to see if your answer is "zero because libs are such hypocrites.")
  #46  
Old 10-28-2019, 03:27 PM
HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 14,825
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
Of course you're concealing your disagreement with what you're posting. There's been a thousand times on this board where I and others have stated, "Well these people say this, and this is what they are thinking, but of course I think they are full of it." It takes like three seconds for anyone to clarify they are writing something they don't actually believe.

You don't do that. Why? ...
Because when relaying factual information, my feelings about it are irrelevant. If someone wants to know, ask and I'll usually answer, as I did in this exchange with you.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
... So, uh, which libs actually raised the issue of a new AUMF for Syria? I'll give you a hint, one of them had the initials BHO and another guy with the initials MM refused to hold a vote on it. ...
Sure, he "raised" it, and then when Congress didn't authorize it, what'd he do? He kept fighting ISIS in Syria, and fell back to justifying it under the original 2001 AUMF.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
... Also, pop quiz: how many times have libs tried to end the 2001 AUMF because it was overbroad? (I'm really just waiting to see if your answer is "zero because libs are such hypocrites.")
I haven't been keeping a precise count, but it hasn't been enough to leave me with the impression that it's something they actually cared to do. There have been periods of time where they've had substantial amounts of power, even controlling the House, Senate, and Presidency for a while. Why didn't they do it then?
  #47  
Old 10-28-2019, 04:15 PM
Bryan Ekers's Avatar
Bryan Ekers is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Montreal, QC
Posts: 59,350
It seems prudent to me to inform senior members of Congress just in case the raid goes crazily wrong and instead of taking out a terrorist, the Marines wipe out the wedding reception of the son of the Minister of Finance. "Oops, I guess we are at war with Tunisia now. Sorry to spring this on you unannounced, but I think we are going to need a lot more funding in the near future."

Of course in Trump's case, he'd blame Obama.
__________________
Don't worry about the end of Inception. We have top men working on it right now. Top. Men.
  #48  
Old 10-28-2019, 04:16 PM
Velocity is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 15,617
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bryan Ekers View Post
It seems prudent to me to inform senior members of Congress just in case the raid goes crazily wrong and instead of taking out a terrorist, the Marines wipe out the wedding reception of the son of the Minister of Finance. "Oops, I guess we are at war with Tunisia now. Sorry to spring this on you unannounced, but I think we are going to need a lot more funding in the near future."

Of course in Trump's case, he'd blame Obama.
How many "accidental" victims do you think are going to be in Baghdadi's compound in Bashira, Syria, at 1 AM?
  #49  
Old 10-28-2019, 04:21 PM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm is online now
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 62,892
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
How many "accidental" victims do you think are going to be in Baghdadi's compound in Bashira, Syria, at 1 AM?
Is it actually necessary to make a list of all the times we hit the wrong target to see the necessity of telling someone other than the Russians about what we are doing? It's not as if the Russians would mind if we fucked up and hit a wedding party or a hospital.
  #50  
Old 10-28-2019, 04:25 PM
HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 14,825
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bryan Ekers View Post
It seems prudent to me to inform senior members of Congress just in case the raid goes crazily wrong and instead of taking out a terrorist, the Marines wipe out the wedding reception of the son of the Minister of Finance. "Oops, I guess we are at war with Tunisia now. Sorry to spring this on you unannounced, but I think we are going to need a lot more funding in the near future." ...
For the raid into Pakistan, a nuclear power and ostensible ally, to get OBL, this makes sense. We've been bombing and raiding over much of Syria for years now. Trying to notify Congress of each individual air strike or raid, when they're already being done in that country at a fairly high volume, seems impractical.

*I* certainly wouldn't mind if Pelosi were tied up in Syria briefings every day, but I think she, and her allies, would probably mind.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:23 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017