Is Obama the Commander and Chief of Congress?

[Jroc]

Iran has and is developing advance ballistic missiles.. those aren't being talked about by Obama,Kerry

OMG you were actually serious!

Are you in elementary school?

Is Obama the Commander and Chief of Congress

apparently you are in elementary school if you had to ask such a childish question.

it's for you leftist Obamaites. Did you answer the question?

and as soon as you point out another bunch of extremist loons in congress that tried to sabotage a sitting president, no doubt you'll be taken seriously.

htt


Pelosi meets with Syria s Assad - World news - Mideast N. Africa NBC News

 

[Interpol]

America used to have "Commanders in Chief".

Now we have an "Apologist in Chief".

Who really would rather be "Golfer in Chief".

You guys are so retarded.

At this rate, Obama would have to actually take the last three-quarters of next year off just to catch up to all the vacation time Dubya took.

 

[JakeStarkey]

"Peace through strength" old man learn it..

Yup, your old man killed more than 250 Marines in Lebanon and then ran, as well as put the our armed fighting forces at risk with Iran-Contra.

 

[Teddy Pollins]

of course not, The president is the "Commander and Chief" of the military. The Congress is a co-equal branch. The liberals seem to forget that fact. They also seem to like an imperial president

Mr President, are you concerned about the division the US has? Red and blue, christian and secular, pro-life and pro-choice... its become almost like a football rivalry where you want the other team to lose even if it is not in the benefit of anyone. What can be done to amend this?

 

[Jroc]

Iran has and is developing advance ballistic missiles.. those aren't being talked about by Obama,Kerry

OMG you were actually serious!

Are you in elementary school?

Is Obama the Commander and Chief of Congress

apparently you are in elementary school if you had to ask such a childish question.

it's for you leftist Obamaites. Did you answer the question?

seriously, ?

no the POTUS is not the Commander of Congress, just the Military.

you dumbass little fart.

There's your answer. Study real hard.

"Little"...LOL.. you don't know me boy. Do you like Obama's imperial presidency?

 

[Jroc]

of course not, The president is the "Commander and Chief" of the military. The Congress is a co-equal branch. The liberals seem to forget that fact. They also seem to like an imperial president

Mr President, are you concerned about the division the US has? Red and blue, christian and secular, pro-life and pro-choice... its become almost like a football rivalry where you want the other team to lose even if it is not in the benefit of anyone. What can be done to amend this?

I want America to win. That means the Marxist appeasers loose

 

[Jroc]

"Peace through strength" old man learn it..

Yup, your old man killed more than 250 Marines in Lebanon and then ran, as well as put the our armed fighting forces at risk with Iran-Contra.

Reagan freed 100s of millions in eastern Europe who has Obama freed? The Iranian mullahs?

 

[Jroc]

America used to have "Commanders in Chief".

Now we have an "Apologist in Chief".

Who really would rather be "Golfer in Chief".

You guys are so retarded.

At this rate, Obama would have to actually take the last three-quarters of next year off just to catch up to all the vacation time Dubya took.

The more vacation the better

 

[Jroc]

OMG you were actually serious!

Are you in elementary school?

Is Obama the Commander and Chief of Congress

apparently you are in elementary school if you had to ask such a childish question.

it's for you leftist Obamaites. Did you answer the question?

and as soon as you point out another bunch of extremist loons in congress that tried to sabotage a sitting president, no doubt you'll be taken seriously.

htt


Pelosi meets with Syria s Assad - World news - Mideast N. Africa NBC News

What happened to my favorite liberal Jew Jillian?

 

[jon_berzerk]

OMG you were actually serious!

Are you in elementary school?

Is Obama the Commander and Chief of Congress

apparently you are in elementary school if you had to ask such a childish question.

it's for you leftist Obamaites. Did you answer the question?

and as soon as you point out another bunch of extremist loons in congress that tried to sabotage a sitting president, no doubt you'll be taken seriously.

htt


Pelosi meets with Syria s Assad - World news - Mideast N. Africa NBC News

gawd that most be a photo chop

democrats dont do that stuff

--LOL

 

[FA_Q2]

...Sending a letter to the nation that the administration is negotiating with is asinine as it breaks down the negotiations...

Sending a letter to an unaccountable and martyrdom-encouraging theocratic junta which labels us The Great Satan, that the American People see through their bullshit, even if our present-day Neville Chamberlain ghost doesn't (or doesn't care) - and putting them on notice that whatever Neville negotiates, it won't be allowed to stand beyond January 20, 2017, probably IS intended to break down the negotiations.

As the maxim goes, a bad deal is usually far worse than no deal, so - best to throw a monkey-wrench into the works before the Mistake gets too much traction.

Except that is not what they did. They put the NATION in a weaker position and possibly secured an even worse deal. The letter throws no 'monkey wrench.' It takes on the president IN THE INCORRECT THEATER. I refuse to give the right a pass on that asinine behavior.


Fail. They achieve nothing and yet get to take the blame. Republicans are really bad politicians at times.

...Tell Obama that the agreement will not be ratified and fought until certain conditions are met and leave it to the president to actually negotiate the deal...

My guess is, that this possibility was considered first, and dispassionately, and for a long time, before reaching the conclusion that our petulant President would have gone ahead and done it his way, regardless, so... why leave the negotiations to someone who is determined to head down the wrong path, regardless of what others tell him?

As I stated, that is fine and would have been the favorable outcome. Let Obama be an idiot and take the blame for being one. Force him BACK to the table to negotiate again when the deal does not pass congress or make it a moot point.

Instead, they had to insert themselves in a process they do not belong in and, mark my words, this is going to be the RIGHT'S fault at the end of the day in the eyes of the public. Poorly played.

...This move looks bad on the republicans...

Or, alternatively, it gives the Pubs the aura of rescuers or champions of the situation... stopping an Appeasement President from giving away the farm; a way of saying to Liberals: "OK, kiddies, play-time is over. You've had six years, and you still haven't figured-out this Iran thing. You're too dangerous to be allowed to continue unsupervised. We'll take it from here, until your shaky lease on the Oval Office has expired. Thank you."

ya, no. That did not actually happen.

...it highlights a fundamental misunderstanding of international politics...

Or, alternatively, it highlights a fundamental understanding of international politics - or, at least, a fundamental understanding of such as it applies to this particular foreign nation (Iran)?

...Do you think that, after this letter was sent, Obama is now in a STRONGER position to make demands against Iran or WEAKER?...

Weaker, of course.

But that's (quite probably) the point of the exercise, isn't it?

The Congress (and a sizable percentage of The People) no longer trust the President in such matters, and perceive him to be negotiating unfavorable terms, and would much rather torpedo current negotiations and revert to the status quo until more competent leadership can be brought to bear on the subject after January 20, 2017?

It is clear that the President has lost the confidence of much of Congress and much of the American People.

Once that happens, other strange things follow, such as hobbling the Lame Duck as a matter of damage control and prevention, until he leaves office.

This is an example of such hobbling of a Lame Duck, apparently... rightly or wrongly... for better or worse.

If that was the point then the left is correct in asserting they are traitors.

There is simply no other way to describe anyone that would intentionally damage our negotiating power with an adversary. There is no way around that no matter what you think of the deal or the president.

...Answer that, truthfully, and you can see why this is a blatant error.

That depends upon whether one trusts the President and perceives him to be competent and acting in the best interests of the United States in such matters, I expect.

You appear to do just that.

A great many others no longer do, if, indeed, they ever did.

I do not. Weather or not I trust the president to execute his office properly is utterly irrelevant. Congress only exacerbated the problem. You are grasping for straws here in an attempt to defend this asinine move.

 

[FA_Q2]

Yet here I am as a Republican...........

View attachment 37702​

The sad thing is most of these establishment types are almost as bad as Jake the fake Republican

What a goof. Thinks he is mainstream when in fact he is a neo-con out in loonyville. We are not going to war.

And here comes one of the last ditch efforts of those without an argument - a false dichotomy.


War is not the only opposing option to the bad deal the president is pushing. Virtually no one is pushing for war.

 

[JakeStarkey]

A false dichotomy you would not recognize.

Do not deny we have neo-cons pushing for major armed confrontation.

 

[jillian]

Are you in elementary school?

Is Obama the Commander and Chief of Congress

apparently you are in elementary school if you had to ask such a childish question.

it's for you leftist Obamaites. Did you answer the question?

and as soon as you point out another bunch of extremist loons in congress that tried to sabotage a sitting president, no doubt you'll be taken seriously.

htt


Pelosi meets with Syria s Assad - World news - Mideast N. Africa NBC News

What happened to my favorite liberal Jew Jillian?

you're not delusional enough to think this is the same, are you?

 

[Geaux4it]

of course not, The president is the "Commander and Chief" of the military. The Congress is a co-equal branch. The liberals seem to forget that fact. They also seem to like an imperial president

The 47 republicans with their ridiculous letter to Iran were foolish, stupid, reckless, and wrong.

And you and others on the right who seek to defend them are just as foolish, stupid, reckless, and wrong.

The letter was the right thing to do. Obama must obtain Senate approval. He can't do this on his own and get away with it

-Geaux

 

[Geaux4it]

We need another strong leader like RR was.

-Geaux

 

[JakeStarkey]

The far right and the racists of the goon squads among the libertarians and reactionaries to the farther right would not vote for RR today.

 

[Kondor3]

...Except that is not what they did...

Au contraire - that is exactly what they did - they threw a monkey wrench into the works.

...They put the NATION in a weaker position and possibly secured an even worse deal...

Any move to derail a Munich Accords in-the-making cannot be all bad.

...It takes on the president IN THE INCORRECT THEATER...

Your point has a great deal of merit, although I can see how extraordinary circumstances might lead to extraordinary actions on the part of the Ratifying Body to intervene before the deal is closed.

...Fail.They achieve nothing and yet get to take the blame. Republicans are really bad politicians at times...

1. We do not yet know whether this was a 'Fail'.

2. There are times when it is better to be an American than it is to be a politician.

...As I stated, that is fine and would have been the favorable outcome. Let Obama be an idiot and take the blame for being one. Force him BACK to the table to negotiate again when the deal does not pass congress or make it a moot point...

This isn't about laying blame.

This is about squashing a dangerous and flawed arrangement before it can materialize. Other countries do not have our same post-signing ratification process and will begin operating under its aegis the moment it's signed. It's far more difficult to go back to the table and tell the others to tear-up the treaty once the object (Iran) and our so-called non-Iranian 'partners' begin operating under its terms, than it is to simply say 'No' at the outset. Use your head about that aspect of it, fer Crissakes.

...Instead, they had to insert themselves in a process they do not belong in and, mark my words, this is going to be the RIGHT'S fault at the end of the day in the eyes of the public. Poorly played...

This isn't a game.

This is about stopping a highly dangerous and dogmatic theocratic autocracy from obtaining nuclear weapons to mount on top of their ballistic missile delivery systems.

...This move looks bad on the republicans...

This isn't about looking good or bad.

This is about stopping a highly dangerous and dogmatic theocratic autocracy from obtaining nuclear weapons to mount on top of their ballistic missile delivery systems.

...ya, no. That did not actually happen...

If you believe that, then you may have failed to draw the proper conclusions from the message to the White House, which was implicit in the Congressional message to the Iranians.

...it highlights a fundamental misunderstanding of international politics...

Goes to my comment about others not having our same ratification process, and about how much more difficult it is to reverse and repudiate a horrible treaty once signed than it is to torpedo the thing before it goes into effect.

...If that was the point then the left is correct in asserting they are traitors...

Hardly. Their actions do not meet the Constitutional definition of Treason. Nothing else signifies.

...There is simply no other way to describe anyone that would intentionally damage our negotiating power with an adversary. There is no way around that no matter what you think of the deal or the president...

Nonsense.

If the British Parliament and the French Parliament had sent messages to Adolf Hitler in 1938, telling him that no matter what Neville Chamberlain said or did, that Britain and France would declare war against Germany, if it dared to defile Czechoslovakia, then Western history might have taken a very different turn.

Many in Congress appear to believe that we have the Ghost of Neville Chamberlain negotiating this deal.

Many in Congress appear to believe that a bad deal is worse than no deal.

Many in Congress appear to believe that a bad deal will prove to be irreversible if normal protocols are observed.

Many in Congress appear to believe that the (nuclear) stakes are far too high to be trusted to the Ghost of Neville Chamberlain.

Many in Congress appear to believe that the (nuclear) stakes are SO high, that extraordinary measures are required, in order to kill the deal altogether.

Many in Congress appear to believe that their extraordinary measure was an action within a completely legal and permissible framework.

Many in Congress appear to believe that it is best to be seen as Obstructionists to a Bad Deal than it is to be seen as flacid Enablers of a Bad Deal.

Are they right?

I dunno.

I don't have a crystal ball.

But I understand why they did it.

...I do not. Weather or not I trust the president to execute his office properly is utterly irrelevant. Congress only exacerbated the problem. You are grasping for straws here in an attempt to defend this asinine move.

Yes, I understand your point, although I disagree with it.

Congress did, indeed, exacerbate the situation.

I am not convinced that that is a bad thing, nor are a great many others, I suspect.

 

[mudwhistle]

of course not, The president is the "Commander and Chief" of the military. The Congress is a co-equal branch. The liberals seem to forget that fact. They also seem to like an imperial president

congress doesn't run a separate foreign policy. the neocon wackjobs seem to have forgotten that.

Obama's foreign policy begins and ends with killing Bin Laden.

He doesn't know what he's doing. That is the point of all of this. Obama is a troublemaker. A race-baiting asshole busy sowing the seeds of racial strife in America. He has no intention of doing good in this world. He's here to fan the flames.

His primary motivation in this Iranian deal is to get big headlines just like the Bin Laden take-down. It doesn't matter if it was an effective means of fighting terrorism because that's not the goal. The goal is simply to give Obama a feather in his cap. Everyone in Congress knows this. All this deal is is a media campaign. Obama gives Iran everything they want and who cares if Israel is threatened. Who cares if a few hundred thousand people die because of it. Who cares if it increases the threat rather than ends it.That's really not Obama's problem. So what if it starts an arms race in the Middle-East. Obama wants to brag about how he worked out a deal.

 

[Geaux4it]

Obama is a narcissist which is all he cares about. Look what the first black POTUS did.

NOTHING!!!

-Geaux