Obama to Congress: I don't need new permission on Iraq

[Claudette]

Constitutionally, I agree he does need permission. However, Congress also passed a law authorizing the president to wage war on any nation that supports terrorism after 9/11. Unfortunately, a rather broad authorization. I don't recall that being repealed. So he may be arguing that.

I agree. After all they pulled our troops out of Iraq claiming the war was over. I think Barry has to go to Congress if he wants renewed fighting in Iraq.

But as you say Congress also passed the POTUS the power to wage war on any nation that supports terrorism. Of course he has to prove that Iraq supports terrorism and since they are busy fighting among themselves right now its a hard one to prove.

 

[Sallow]

Hey he went into libya without congress' OK, and they did nothing about it, so I'm sure if he decides to do anything in Iraq he will do it unilaterally and get away with another violation of the law.

Our congress is so whipped that obama has been given a free hand to almost anything he wants, Constitution and the law be damned.

Went into Libya?

 

[Geaux4it]

Why does Obama need to follow the Constitution? He has routinely thumbed his nose at it while the pub's sit around scratching their ass

-Geaux

 

[Sallow]

No it is not if you want to do things legally! Which the far left would demand with someone with an (R) next to their name.

The reason Obama will not do this is because this is the mid term elections and if the far left back Obama's war in Iraq they will certainly loose the senate.

Remember it needs to be done legally and constitutionally.

I completely get your point and I agree. However I think you missed my point. If Obama wants to send attack jets into Iraq on bombing missions congress would approve with a 90% majority. Bank on it

As he said he doesn't need their approval to do that. as long as they are in and out within a certain timeframe.

And that's not why he doesn't need their approval.

The AUMF gives the President some very broad (and in my opinion, very dangerous) powers to fight "terrorism".

It should be repealed.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Constitutionally, I agree he does need permission. However, Congress also passed a law authorizing the president to wage war on any nation that supports terrorism after 9/11. Unfortunately, a rather broad authorization. I don't recall that being repealed. So he may be arguing that.

The AUMF has been neither repealed nor ruled un-Constitutional, so Constitutionally he does not ‘need permission.’

Or more precisely, he’s already been authorized by Congress.

 

[Geaux4it]

Grading Obama’s Foreign Policy

Start with Libya, the site of Obama’s own war of choice. The consuming Republican focus on Benghazi has tended to obscure the fact that post-Qaddafi Libya is generally a disaster area — its government nonfunctional, its territory a safe harbor for jihadists, its former ruler’s weaponry and fighters destabilizing sub-Saharan Africa. (Some of those weapons, for instance, appear to be in the hands of Nigeria’s most-wanted kidnappers, Boko Haram.)

Then swing northeast to Syria, where this administration’s stated policy is that Bashar al-Assad has to go, and that there is a “red line” — backed by force, if necessary — around the use of chemical weapons. Well, Assad isn’t going; he’s winning. And the White House’s claims of progress on the chemical weapons front were undermined by Secretary of State John Kerry’s acknowledgment last week that “raw data” suggested a “number of instances” in which Assad’s government recently used chlorine gas.

The picture doesn’t look better when you turn south or east. In the Holy Land, Kerry’s recent push for Israeli-Palestinian negotiations ended in predictable failure, and in Iraq the caldron is boiling and Iranian influence is growing — in part, The New Yorker’s Dexter Filkins suggested last month, because the White House’s indecision undercut negotiations that might have left a small but stabilizing U.S. force in place.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/18/opinion/sunday/douthat-grading-obamas-foreign-policy.html?_r=0

 

[Kosh]

Constitutionally, I agree he does need permission. However, Congress also passed a law authorizing the president to wage war on any nation that supports terrorism after 9/11. Unfortunately, a rather broad authorization. I don't recall that being repealed. So he may be arguing that.

The AUMF has been neither repealed nor ruled un-Constitutional, so Constitutionally he does not ‘need permission.’

Or more precisely, he’s already been authorized by Congress.

More far left propaganda!

Section 2 - Authorization For Use of United States Armed Forces

(a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

(b) War Powers Resolution Requirements-

(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS- Nothing in this resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.

Might want to read the actual law instead of the far left blog site sites interpretation of said such law.

 

[Freewill]

As I understand it, and I maybe wrong, is that he can take action and has 30 days to advise congress. I see no problem doing that. To tie the president's hands and say he can not act quickly when needed is fool hardy to the point of being idioticy.

For example, in order to stop a humanitarian crisis, so they say, Clinton wage war on Bosnia and bypassed Congress. He said he had to act. Congress certainly knew what was going on and could have stopped him at any time. The drone program the same thing. But with Iraq there was time and Bush did go to congress as he is required to do.

I didn't want war in Iraq or Afghanistan in the first place, would have voted no. But we did and we need not to back down now. I applaud Obama if he takes decisive action to stop the murderous radicals invading Iraq. It is my opinion that freedom is worth defending.

As for the Iraqi people not wanting freedom the reports are that they are signing up to fight ISLS. They apparently love freedom as much as anyone and the fact that they know what it is like to live without freedom, in my opinion, makes them want it more.

 

[Iceweasel]

If Bush had said that liberals would have veins popping out on their foreheads and spittle flying all over the place as they protested, marched in the streets and burned effigies. You can only laugh at liberals, you can't reason with them.

 

[rightwinger]

Obama doesn't need "permission" in Iraq

But I love how he is throwing the issue at Congress. Republicans will disagree regardless of what Obama does.........Make them vote yes or no

 

[natstew]

No it is not if you want to do things legally! Which the far left would demand with someone with an (R) next to their name.

The reason Obama will not do this is because this is the mid term elections and if the far left back Obama's war in Iraq they will certainly loose the senate.

Remember it needs to be done legally and constitutionally.

I completely get your point and I agree. However I think you missed my point. If Obama wants to send attack jets into Iraq on bombing missions congress would approve with a 90% majority. Bank on it

I doubt that it would be 90%. The hard core far leftist in Congress will not vote for war in Iraq, especially during the mid term elections.

And that is precisely why Obama won't ask Congress for permission.

 

[Moonglow]

Obama to Congress: I don't need new permission on Iraq

Obama to Congress: I don't need new permission on Iraq - CNN.com

WOW the far left does not like to be told what to do. Now Obama would need Congressional authorization to make any military action in Iraq.

Had this been anyone with an (R) next to their name, the far left would be besides themselves.

I guess since Obama got away with his illegal war in Libya he will not start a true illegal war in Iraq.

Illegal war? Wow, how have you been since the lobotomy?

 

[Moonglow]

The GOP will never support Oblama no matter what he does, so why go through Congress?

 

[Freewill]

The GOP will never support Oblama no matter what he does, so why go through Congress?

We expect people to follow the law whether they like it or not? Majority rules? We are not a dictatorship? Most Americans didn't want Obamacare but we are forced to participate in that to which we oppose. Why should the president get to pick the laws he wishes to obey?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ejvyDn1TPr8]Nixon - When the president does it, that means that it is not illegal - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Freewill]

Constitutionally, I agree he does need permission. However, Congress also passed a law authorizing the president to wage war on any nation that supports terrorism after 9/11. Unfortunately, a rather broad authorization. I don't recall that being repealed. So he may be arguing that.

The AUMF has been neither repealed nor ruled un-Constitutional, so Constitutionally he does not ‘need permission.’

Or more precisely, he’s already been authorized by Congress.

No he hasn't at least because of the AUMF. But he is authorized by the Wars power act. Careful how we stretch what the AUMF says, someday there just might be a president you don't like.

This is what the WPA states according to this site:

War Powers Resolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The War Powers Resolution requires the President to notify Congress within 48 hours of committing armed forces to military action and forbids armed forces from remaining for more than 60 days, with a further 30 day withdrawal period, without an authorization of the use of military force or a declaration of war. The resolution was passed by two-thirds of Congress, overriding a presidential veto. It has been alleged that the War Powers Resolution has been violated in the past, for example, by President Clinton in 1999, during the bombing campaign in Kosovo. All incidents have had congressional disapproval, but none has resulted in any successful legal actions being taken against the president for alleged violations.[2]

So in a previous post I was incorrect he has to inform them within 48 hours, not sure of the process for doing so, is turning on CNN good enough notification?

So what he should do is back the Iraqis and then go to congress for their blessing. That is what SHOULD be done. But as noted above Clinton didn't bother and nothing happened.

 

[rightwinger]

The GOP will never support Oblama no matter what he does, so why go through Congress?

The Republicans love to harp at Obama from the Sunday morning talk shows. Whatever course of action he takes, they will oppose

They did it in Libya, Egypt, Syria and Ukraine

Make them vote and let their position be known

 

[Katzndogz]

Constitutionally, I agree he does need permission. However, Congress also passed a law authorizing the president to wage war on any nation that supports terrorism after 9/11. Unfortunately, a rather broad authorization. I don't recall that being repealed. So he may be arguing that.

That would be quite a stretch since this Iraq, this government of Iraq, wasn't even in existence when 9/11 happened.

 

[Freewill]

Obama to Congress: I don't need new permission on Iraq

Obama to Congress: I don't need new permission on Iraq - CNN.com

WOW the far left does not like to be told what to do. Now Obama would need Congressional authorization to make any military action in Iraq.

Had this been anyone with an (R) next to their name, the far left would be besides themselves.

I guess since Obama got away with his illegal war in Libya he will not start a true illegal war in Iraq.

Illegal war? Wow, how have you been since the lobotomy?

I am glad that you admit that Iraq was not an illegal war. So many on the left seem to make that claim.

 

[Moonglow]

The GOP will never support Oblama no matter what he does, so why go through Congress?

We expect people to follow the law whether they like it or not? Majority rules? We are not a dictatorship? Most Americans didn't want Obamacare but we are forced to participate in that to which we oppose. Why should the president get to pick the laws he wishes to obey?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ejvyDn1TPr8]Nixon - When the president does it, that means that it is not illegal - YouTube[/ame]

Congress never authorized Reagan to bomb Libya, but you know how it is....that War Powers Act and all...

 

[Claudette]

The GOP will never support Oblama no matter what he does, so why go through Congress?

The Republicans love to harp at Obama from the Sunday morning talk shows. Whatever course of action he takes, they will oppose

They did it in Libya, Egypt, Syria and Ukraine

Make them vote and let their position be known

Of course you realize the Dems will also have to vote yeah or nay on Iraq and their position will be known as well.

Personally I'd be happy if they nuked the whole middle east from orbit.

I sure don't want any more of our boys and girls killed over there. Let Iraq sink or swim on its own.