Al Qaida threat worse under Obama

[elvis]

Simple

The war powers resolution - Judiciary Power and Practice



What About the War Powers Act?

i think that goes along with what Conhog explained earlier in the thread.

So why did Bush go through congress first? To gain American citizen support?

The media took care of American citizen support.

 

[Jack Fate]

i wasn't being funny. i was trying to help you since you seem to need it.

go look at my earlier post about what the law was pre-bush v gore and what it remains today.... and how b v g was a deviation from that law which the court then determined has no precedential value.

regardless of whether you agree with the determination of the highest court of the state of florida, the law was AND IS that the decision of the highest court of a state determines its own election law.

your repeated use of the word 'illegal' doesn't make it so.

Evidently the state of Florida's SC is not above the USSC because they did what they were told. Case closed. Bush won and every recount proved it. Now please stop saying dumb things.

again, the fact the recount showed Bush won has nothing to do with the legality of the recount.

The USSC stopped it. Why?

 

[Jack Fate]

i think that goes along with what Conhog explained earlier in the thread.

So why did Bush go through congress first? To gain American citizen support?

The media took care of American citizen support.

You didn't answer my question. Why did Bush go through congress?

 

[elvis]

Evidently the state of Florida's SC is not above the USSC because they did what they were told. Case closed. Bush won and every recount proved it. Now please stop saying dumb things.

again, the fact the recount showed Bush won has nothing to do with the legality of the recount.

The USSC stopped it. Why?

you say it was illegal, supposedly because seven people ordered that it be stopped.

 

[elvis]

So why did Bush go through congress first? To gain American citizen support?

The media took care of American citizen support.

You didn't answer my question. Why did Bush go through congress?

I answered your second question, which was connected to your first one.

 

[asaratis]

I've read enough of this shit to realize that history is repeating itself right before my very eyes. You brain-dead liberals have no clue....NO FUCKIN' CLUE!!

Barack Hussein Obama is a goddamned Marxist Muslim that wishes the United States to turn into a fucking socialist nation governed by the elite members of his personal staff of corrupt liberal assholes. He is doing everything within his legal ( and illegal) power to make that happen.

There are many blind, deaf, kool-aid drinking numbnuts that believe he is Christ, the Savior. What a fucking joke...Obama!

What history is repeating itself? Vietnam viz-a-viz Iraq? Sheet, I was saying such on other messageboards just after 9-11 when anybody with even half a brain knew Bush's puppetmasters saw that tragedy as an opening to attack Saddam.

Obama is nothing like a Marxist or a Muslim. You know nothing of that political system or religion if you honestly think so.

You want corruption? How about getting all the energy power brokers in one room with the Executive Branch of your govt to decide energy policy with no public oversight?

I could go on...

...but at the end of the day Asa, the biggest problem in America is your political system. It's totally fucked.....

Obama praises his Marxist professors, appoints outright communists to political positions, loves Jeremiah Wright and what's-his-face...Bill Aires(?) that helped him start his political career as a community organizer, after setting off bombs and wishing he's done more...Obama seems to love people that hate America. Even his racist wife is just now becoming proud of this country.

Obama is a MARXIST! Get that through your thick ass head!

The ruling elite has arrived, my friends. Just like the Jeffersons....movin' on up!

Oh, so you can 'learn' experience? Really? So why was Bush such a fucking disaster..

Where I'm from is irrelevant....but has already been answered by another poster...

Of course you learn experience. Experience is living and learning. Are you really this thick or are you putting me on?

Read my posts. Do you think I'm thick?

Thick or thin...you can't handle the quote commands.

US Congress voted based on dodgy intel from Bush puppets. Anything else?

Here are some quotes by Demoracts before Bush became President. Now sit down and shut up.

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
--Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
--Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by:
-- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
-Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
-- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

Oh God (puts heads in hands).
Do I have to go through this shit every time a new neocon joins this board. God, this is so tedious...

I'll say this to you, you fucking moron and this is all I'll say on it. I'll even put it in capitals:

DID THE CLINTON ADMINISTRATION INVADE IRAQ?

If you answer in the negative, then STFU....

Clinton, as POTUS, signed the bill that said it was the goal of the United States to free the Iraqi people from the regime of Saddam Hussein. That means, you OVERTHROW HIS ASS BY FORCE!

What part of this is hard for you nitwit Bush haters to underfuckinstand?

US Congress voted based on dodgy intel from Bush puppets. Anything else?

Here are some quotes by Demoracts before Bush becamse President. Now sit down and shut up.

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
--Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
--Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by:
-- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
-Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
-- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

And none of those dem quotes say we should invade Iraq

Here are some quotes by Demoracts before Bush becamse President. Now sit down and shut up.

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
--Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
--Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by:
-- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
-Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
-- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

saddam wanted everyone to think he had WMDs. Still, when a decision is made to go to war, the CIC bears most of the responsibility. He is, after all, the decider.

You don't believe Saddam had WMD? Where did they go? Did he use them all on the Kurd and forgot how to make more?

We sold him what he used. He could have bought other things from other sources. Who knows? He sent a lot of trucks into Syria just before we invaded. Who knows? Maybe he hid some shit in Syria. Who knows? Have you been to Syria lately?

All you nitwits that think he never had WMD don't know anything about hiding parcels.

saddam wanted everyone to think he had WMDs. Still, when a decision is made to go to war, the CIC bears most of the responsibility. He is, after all, the decider.

The congress gave the authority. Blame congress and all those Democrats who voted for regime change. Let's see how honest you are.

what about the republicans who voted for it? If someone gives me the authority to put a bullet in someone's head, who is more responsible for the person's death?

The nation should feel responsible. We elected ALL of the people that voted for it, the man that signed the bill making it OUR goal, the man that initiated the effort. We paid for and supported our troops (except for the candy assed few that protested the effort) and we went to war.

We have paid dearly for it. Lives of our sons and daughters, Iraqi soldiers, innocent Iraqi citizens, coalition troops... have been lost. Material damage and expense in in the billions. We have gained the freedom of the Iraqi people to vote as they please in elections where the candidates are many rather than one. For that one thing, I thank Bill Clinton for having the balls to sign the bill.

I thought Bush was going to have OBL's head and AQ was a goner in 6 months?

Obama hasn't caught his elusive ass either, has he?

Ooops, I forgot! Obama doesn't want to catch Osama. He wants to invite him to a conference table where he can inform him as to what he should do to compensate for the pain and suffering he has inflicted on the American people.

Clinton's words reveal his position. Liar.

How can I lie about something that never happened? Clinton had 8 years to invade Iraq. Did he do so?

no, but he bombed it.

Sure did....every time the news about him and his Oval Office Blow Jobs got too heavy on the talk shows, he'd bomb somebody, somewhere!

A cur dog, Bill Clinton.

 

[jillian]

so you're saying it's illegal based on the judgment (sp?) of seven people.

They were overruled by the USSC.

Yes....... seven people. the decision was 7-2.

there were multiple rulings, if i recall correctly. the 7-2 ruling remanded the matter to the highest court of florida to fix the manner in which the recount was being conducted. the main ruling was 5-4 and if sandra day o'connor had voted in the manner which she later said she should have, the result would have been vastly different.

she said that decision was her greatest regret as a justice.

 

[sangha]

How can I lie about something that never happened? Clinton had 8 years to invade Iraq. Did he do so?

He didn't have the authority to invade Iraq. Bush did.

Incorrect. The President never needs Congressional permission to invade anyone.

It's called The War Powers Act. Like you said, the president can invade now, and report to congress later

 

[Jack Fate]

The media took care of American citizen support.

You didn't answer my question. Why did Bush go through congress?

I answered your second question, which was connected to your first one.

I'll try again.

Why did Bush go through congress?

 

[Jack Fate]

They were overruled by the USSC.

Yes....... seven people. the decision was 7-2.

there were multiple rulings, if i recall correctly. the 7-2 ruling remanded the matter to the highest court of florida to fix the manner in which the recount was being conducted. the main ruling was 5-4 and if sandra day o'connor had voted in the manner which she later said she should have, the result would have been vastly different.

she said that decision was her greatest regret as a justice.

Blah, blah, blah.

The fact is that Bush was not "appointed". Please stop saying stupid stuff.

 

[ConHog]

So why did Bush go through congress first? To gain American citizen support?

The media took care of American citizen support.

You didn't answer my question. Why did Bush go through congress?

Jack, I'm gonna tell you the reason. You can take it or leave it as you see fit, but it is the reason.


Because the President is certainly authorized to deploy troops under the War Powers Act, but he is also required by the same law to report to Congress when he does so. Now in smaller situations he simply has a staff member report to a few key Congressmen and Senators, but on something as large as the invasion of Iraq, and Afghanistan he traditionally reports to the entire body. It is also customary at that time to go ahead and vote in support of the President.The reason for this is obvious, or should be.

So there was no meeting to get permission to go to Iraq, there was a meeting to report that we WERE going to Iraq, there was also a vote of support the President's decision, but had they voted not to support him he would have been perfectly within his powers to say fuck you and send them anyway for 90 days.

 

[sangha]

You don't believe Saddam had WMD? Where did they go? Did he use them all on the Kurd and forgot how to make more?

"forgetting how to make more" was never part of the question.

If I remember correctly the argument at the time was just as much would Saddam give the technology to terrorists as it was would Saddam use them himself. So even if you debate that he had viable chemical material himself, you can't debate that he obviously had the technical know ho and was a big of enough asshole to give it to our enemies.

Actually, the facts show that Saddam did not have any chemical weapons program. He did have leftover stocks, which were degraded, and which he turned over to the inspection team

As far as know how goes, Iraq didn't have much. The only chemical weapons it ever actually used were sold to Saddam by Runsfeld during the Reagan/Bush years.

 

[sangha]

You didn't answer my question. Why did Bush go through congress?

I answered your second question, which was connected to your first one.

I'll try again.

Why did Bush go through congress?

Political CYA

 

[Jack Fate]

The media took care of American citizen support.

You didn't answer my question. Why did Bush go through congress?

Jack, I'm gonna tell you the reason. You can take it or leave it as you see fit, but it is the reason.


Because the President is certainly authorized to deploy troops under the War Powers Act, but he is also required by the same law to report to Congress when he does so. Now in smaller situations he simply has a staff member report to a few key Congressmen and Senators, but on something as large as the invasion of Iraq, and Afghanistan he traditionally reports to the entire body. It is also customary at that time to go ahead and vote in support of the President.The reason for this is obvious, or should be.

So there was no meeting to get permission to go to Iraq, there was a meeting to report that we WERE going to Iraq, there was also a vote of support the President's decision, but had they voted not to support him he would have been perfectly within his powers to say fuck you and send them anyway for 90 days.

That's clear. My point in this entire debate is that Bush is not solely responsible for the invasion of Iraq as the left wants to say he is. The left has been spouting this lie for 8 years now.

 

[sangha]

The media took care of American citizen support.

You didn't answer my question. Why did Bush go through congress?

Jack, I'm gonna tell you the reason. You can take it or leave it as you see fit, but it is the reason.


Because the President is certainly authorized to deploy troops under the War Powers Act, but he is also required by the same law to report to Congress when he does so. Now in smaller situations he simply has a staff member report to a few key Congressmen and Senators, but on something as large as the invasion of Iraq, and Afghanistan he traditionally reports to the entire body. It is also customary at that time to go ahead and vote in support of the President.The reason for this is obvious, or should be.

So there was no meeting to get permission to go to Iraq, there was a meeting to report that we WERE going to Iraq, there was also a vote of support the President's decision, but had they voted not to support him he would have been perfectly within his powers to say fuck you and send them anyway for 90 days.

I have to hand it to you. You are 100% right about this in every detail.

THE PRESIDENT'S CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY TO CONDUCT MILITARY OPERATIONS AGAINST TERRORISTS AND NATIONS SUPPORTING THEM

 

[elvis]

You didn't answer my question. Why did Bush go through congress?

Jack, I'm gonna tell you the reason. You can take it or leave it as you see fit, but it is the reason.


Because the President is certainly authorized to deploy troops under the War Powers Act, but he is also required by the same law to report to Congress when he does so. Now in smaller situations he simply has a staff member report to a few key Congressmen and Senators, but on something as large as the invasion of Iraq, and Afghanistan he traditionally reports to the entire body. It is also customary at that time to go ahead and vote in support of the President.The reason for this is obvious, or should be.

So there was no meeting to get permission to go to Iraq, there was a meeting to report that we WERE going to Iraq, there was also a vote of support the President's decision, but had they voted not to support him he would have been perfectly within his powers to say fuck you and send them anyway for 90 days.

That's clear. My point in this entire debate is that Bush is not solely responsible for the invasion of Iraq as the left wants to say he is. The left has been spouting this lie for 8 years now.

He isn't solely responsible, but he holds more responsibility than anyone else. He was, after all, the decider.

 

[Jack Fate]

"forgetting how to make more" was never part of the question.

If I remember correctly the argument at the time was just as much would Saddam give the technology to terrorists as it was would Saddam use them himself. So even if you debate that he had viable chemical material himself, you can't debate that he obviously had the technical know ho and was a big of enough asshole to give it to our enemies.

Actually, the facts show that Saddam did not have any chemical weapons program. He did have leftover stocks, which were degraded, and which he turned over to the inspection team

As far as know how goes, Iraq didn't have much. The only chemical weapons it ever actually used were sold to Saddam by Runsfeld during the Reagan/Bush years.

Anyone can take pictures. Means nothing.

 

[Jack Fate]

Jack, I'm gonna tell you the reason. You can take it or leave it as you see fit, but it is the reason.


Because the President is certainly authorized to deploy troops under the War Powers Act, but he is also required by the same law to report to Congress when he does so. Now in smaller situations he simply has a staff member report to a few key Congressmen and Senators, but on something as large as the invasion of Iraq, and Afghanistan he traditionally reports to the entire body. It is also customary at that time to go ahead and vote in support of the President.The reason for this is obvious, or should be.

So there was no meeting to get permission to go to Iraq, there was a meeting to report that we WERE going to Iraq, there was also a vote of support the President's decision, but had they voted not to support him he would have been perfectly within his powers to say fuck you and send them anyway for 90 days.

That's clear. My point in this entire debate is that Bush is not solely responsible for the invasion of Iraq as the left wants to say he is. The left has been spouting this lie for 8 years now.

He isn't solely responsible, but he holds more responsibility than anyone else. He was, after all, the decider.

And he did what he thought was right and so did every member of congress who voted for the invasion. We will not know whether Iraq was worth it until years from now. Let history judge.

 

[ConHog]

You didn't answer my question. Why did Bush go through congress?

Jack, I'm gonna tell you the reason. You can take it or leave it as you see fit, but it is the reason.


Because the President is certainly authorized to deploy troops under the War Powers Act, but he is also required by the same law to report to Congress when he does so. Now in smaller situations he simply has a staff member report to a few key Congressmen and Senators, but on something as large as the invasion of Iraq, and Afghanistan he traditionally reports to the entire body. It is also customary at that time to go ahead and vote in support of the President.The reason for this is obvious, or should be.

So there was no meeting to get permission to go to Iraq, there was a meeting to report that we WERE going to Iraq, there was also a vote of support the President's decision, but had they voted not to support him he would have been perfectly within his powers to say fuck you and send them anyway for 90 days.

That's clear. My point in this entire debate is that Bush is not solely responsible for the invasion of Iraq as the left wants to say he is. The left has been spouting this lie for 8 years now.

well in fact , here is the vote on the resolution.


House of Rep

Party Ayes Nays PRES No Vote
Republican 215 6 0 2
Democratic 82 126 0 1
Independent 0 1 0 0
TOTALS 297 133 0 3

Senate

Party Ayes Nays No Vote
Republican 48 1 0
Democratic 29 21 0
Independent 0 1 0
TOTALS 77 23 0


The House Dems were predominantly against is while the Senate Dems were pretty much supportive of the invasion. Case closed.

 

[Jack Fate]

Jack, I'm gonna tell you the reason. You can take it or leave it as you see fit, but it is the reason.


Because the President is certainly authorized to deploy troops under the War Powers Act, but he is also required by the same law to report to Congress when he does so. Now in smaller situations he simply has a staff member report to a few key Congressmen and Senators, but on something as large as the invasion of Iraq, and Afghanistan he traditionally reports to the entire body. It is also customary at that time to go ahead and vote in support of the President.The reason for this is obvious, or should be.

So there was no meeting to get permission to go to Iraq, there was a meeting to report that we WERE going to Iraq, there was also a vote of support the President's decision, but had they voted not to support him he would have been perfectly within his powers to say fuck you and send them anyway for 90 days.

That's clear. My point in this entire debate is that Bush is not solely responsible for the invasion of Iraq as the left wants to say he is. The left has been spouting this lie for 8 years now.

well in fact , here is the vote on the resolution.


House of Rep

Party Ayes Nays PRES No Vote
Republican 215 6 0 2
Democratic 82 126 0 1
Independent 0 1 0 0
TOTALS 297 133 0 3

Senate

Party Ayes Nays No Vote
Republican 48 1 0
Democratic 29 21 0
Independent 0 1 0
TOTALS 77 23 0


The House Dems were predominantly against is while the Senate Dems were pretty much supportive of the invasion. Case closed.

And I never disputed that. I posted the vote earlier. Again, my point was that there were Democrats who supported the invasion. The votes make my point. We are in agreement.