BTW, just to add to the “blabbermouth” thing:
http://www.boston.com/news/politics/2008/specials/CandidateQA/ObamaQA/
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.
LOL. Step back from the moonshine, Virgil.
More widely, the anti-Assad rebels must be in all kinds of trouble in order to need this kind of manufactured assistance.
Terr: Except for all the countless times a President has done it anyway. Recall that the authority to decide what is “an actual or imminent threat to the nation” is up to him.
Nice try, though. Kinda wish you’d told Dubya the same thing, huh?
Did “Dubya” declare that “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.” at any point before or after he became President?
Please don’t accuse me of lying in GD.
It’s extremely rude.
Anyway, please explain why you think I and Boblibdem are Bush supporters.
Thanks in advance.
Since you didn’t listen to tomndebb’s mod note, this is an official warning. If you want to attack other posters like this, go to The BBQ Pit.
In retrospect, I’ll drop my question to Broken because at this point it’s a hijack. If he wants to respond to it I’ll discuss it further in the pit.
Sorry for posting it.
Way to miss the point. :rolleyes: Or is that merely evading it?
The one missing the point is you. Let me explain it to you this way: I often hear liberals excusing leftist politicians’ sexual misbehaviors while gleefully excoriating the rightist politicians’ by explaining that it’s not the shenanigans themselves that are objectionable, but it is the hypocrisy of the rightwingers’ moral stances not matching their actions.
Well here is the same thing. GWB never claimed that Presidents are not authorized to order military attacks that are not in self-defense. Obama, explicitly, did. This he is the hypocrite. Hope this makes it clear.
Just to season in some wackiness, here is some vintage Joe Biden as well:
http://www.seacoastonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071129/NEWS/71129018
November 29, 2007 5:03 PM
PORTSMOUTH — Presidential hopeful Delaware Sen. Joe Biden stated unequivocally that he will move to impeach President Bush if he bombs Iran without first gaining congressional approval.
…
“The president has no authority to unilaterally attack Iran, and if he does, as Foreign Relations Committee chairman, I will move to impeach,” said Biden, whose words were followed by a raucous applause from the local audience.
Biden said he is in the process of meeting with constitutional law experts to prepare a legal memorandum saying as much and intends to send it to the president.
It would be interesting to see what Obama explicitly said on the topic.
More and more disappointed by Bush-III by the day. This one isn’t even trying to get authorization by the US Congress, prior to launching this upcoming American misadventure – meanwhile being warned by both, Russia & China not to do it.
Hell, he’s not even going to bother sending his “Colin Powell” with his vial of death to convince the world of the new Saddam, Assad, of his WMD’s. Where is the evidence? :rolleyes:
Meanwhile: Syrian government says U.S. secretary of state ‘fabricated’ evidence that Assad was behind chemical weapons attack; Russia warns strike on Syria would have ‘catastrophic’ implications for Mideast. – underline mine.
– plenty more @source.
Americans/Obama, please, stop trying to police the world at your convenience, it is rather fucked-up as it is without your “help.” Sure, what’s happening in Syria is tragic – though it pales compared with other conflicts where the US has shown no interest in intervening although they affect you directly, e.g. Mexico’s Drug War.
Besides, why Syria? Plenty more to choose from: List of ongoing military conflicts
A face-off with Russia & China over basically AQ vs Assad? With no authorizations but his own powers? Awesome. Just hope nuclear fall-out doesn’t reach my shores.
It won’t; neither your shores nor anybody’s. I very much doubt China and Russia would do anything but loudly castigate the US and its Western allies verbally if missiles fell on Syria. If push comes to shove, they definitely won’t risk their countries for the sake of a tinpot dictator in the Middle East. Iran might object, but they don’t really have the means for overt retaliation. Israel might get embroiled in some clusterfuck by proxy (meaning, “I can’t mess directly with the US but I can mess with its perceived representative in the area”) but the chances of it becoming nuclear are rather low.
There will likely be a recrudescence of guerrilla and terrorist attacks in many places, of course, and I don’t think that it would be very fun being Lebanon in that situation.
But, after the dust settles, things should go back to their usual state of general fucked-up-ness, traditional in the area.
I am neither for nor against a possible strike against Syria. I don’t think it will solve things in the long run. Although I also don’t think that it will be really avoidable (and Russia and China both know that as well).
I already posted the link, just a few posts up.
GWB, like other presidents before him, refused to acknowledge the constitutionality of the War Powers Act. He claimed that the Commander in Chief did have the authority to order the troops to act without requiring Congressional approval. The act has never been tested in the Supreme Court.
FWIW, I’m a pro-Obama liberal, and think the WPA act is constitutional. Obama should get Congressional approval before launching weapons at Syria.
Scanning the front page of CNN.com right now, the war drums are beating pretty loudly.
Interesting article up now on CNN.com that argues the point that perhaps an arbitrary “red line” WRT the use of chemical weapons is pretty useless given that 100,000 or more have already died at the hands of conventional weapons.
Check it out: http://www.cnn.com/2013/08/27/world/meast/syria-chemical-weapons-red-line/index.html?hpt=hp_t1
Well, I will confess to being a day behind on the news cycle, but that still does not necessarily support US cruise missiles this week.
But to the matter at hand. What is the point of a military gesture like this? It’s OK to kill 10,000 civilians using conventional weapons, but if you kill 200 civilians using CWs, then we’re going to slap you on the wrist? And why does the US have to be the wrist slapper? How about Britain, France or Turkey takes their turn at being the wrist slapper?
I hope Obama doesn’t go and “do something” just because we have to “do something”. Actually, we don’t. This is an internal affair, and we don’t really want either side to win. Besides, I’m having total deja vu what with MWDs, weapons inspectors, and even talk of a Coalition of the Willing. Assad knows we aren’t going to escalate to boots on the ground, and Obama even told him he can stay in power. So, he writes any strike off as the cost of quelling the rebellion. BFD.
Well we do have to “do something” because the rhetoric used in the past year was that we WOULD “do something” if a line was crossed. You tell people there will be consequences, and then don’t follow through, then the next time you have to tell someone not to cross you they’re less inclined to worry about crossing you.
But yes, a few cruise missiles isn’t going to solve anything.
Well, if the ship movements and the diplomatic noise are to be believed, it looks like everyone mentioned might be lining up to take a turn.
While I agree that it’s not absolutely necessary it is for us to all react to it by attacking Assad, I’m not sure what is left to do for those who feel they have to do something. It was a horrible act, normally at least sanctions would be warranted. We’ve already passed that, and are supplying small arms to his enemies. Where do they go besides limited strikes if they are determined they have to do something in reaction?