Obama to seek congress approval

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Obabble caught with his dick in his hand...asks congress to return it to his pants.

One of many reasons why the partisan right has zero credibility, a consequence of their tedious, moronic mantra that ‘Obama is always wrong.’

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

if the Congress does not approve - this will save obama's face and this country from another unnecessary war.

Call your representatives NOW.

Yet another example of why conservatives have zero credibility: their lies.

No one is advocating, including the president, ‘going to war’ with Syria.

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

Countries have chemical weapons for a reason, and why are people so surprised that this a moment they would be used by a regime that did nothing but try to uphold order in its country but has had a superpower bearing down on it for years? Syria may just go ahead and use CW a lot. Assad's neck like Khadafi's is at stake. Why the surprise?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Reread the exchange, Black label ( I think) claimed Bush LIED to get us in war, simply not true.

Bush DID NOT LIE - Iraq HAD WMDs and it was discovered, contrary to the libtards hysterical lies.

Even wikileaks releases confirmed that.

A lot of countries have WMDs. Should we start a campaign against them all?

Countries With Weapons of Mass Destruction - Intelligence Threat Assessments

Bush himself said the WMDs were not there, and he would not have invaded if he had know that. No amount of lying can get around that.

 

[tinydancer]

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Barack Obama says he has decided that the United States should take military action against Syria in response to a deadly chemical weapons attack.

But he says he will seek congressional authorization for the use of force.

He says congressional leadership plans to hold a debate and a vote as soon as Congress comes back in September.

Obama says he has the authority to act on his own, but believes it is important for the country to have a debate.

Military action would be in response to a chemical weapons attack the U.S. says Syrian President Bashar Assad's government carried out against civilians. The U.S. says more than 1,400 Syrians were killed in that attack last week.

That motherfucking TYRANT!!!!!! Impeach the fucking bastard for using the proper channels!

Nancy Pelosi told him he had to engage Congress.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The hypocrites here are silly: he is damned if he does and damned if he doesn't.

 

[Yurt]

if the Congress does not approve - this will save obama's face and this country from another unnecessary war.

Call your representatives NOW.

Yet another example of why conservatives have zero credibility: their lies.

No one is advocating, including the president, ‘going to war’ with Syria.

what do you think military action is?

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

Syria is a small, poor country with few resources that is a prime candidate to use CW when its existence is threatened by a superpower for no reason. In the end, what other defense do they have?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Obama seeking Congressional approval will put the legislators each on notice they must say yea or no.

 

[shintao]

well, hes paralyzed. he has been trying to play catch up with the red line marker he laid down way back.

He announced yes we are attacking then what we'll do, now we'll wait. He spent a week winding this up, now, it will be seen overseas as a balk, and well, its a sign of indecisiveness and weakness. He seems to speak without considering the power of his words cum promises. If he wanted to wait for a coalition to form then he should have before making declarative statements. Kerry too.

Just a note that he doesn't need congresses approval to strike, hes got 60 days.

I read the war powers act because I too believed that, BUT the war powers act restricts him to only using force without approval first if we are attacked, we are invaded , our military are attacked or there is eminent threat of an attack or invasion.

the out clause is national security threat, national interests yada yada he did that for Libya....

Actually, the out clause is the War Powers resolution that gives him authority/power to act without Congress for any reason he wants to dream up. The key to this is using the ongoing terrorist wars that have no ending with changing of CICs, and can and will continue to occur anywhere. Thks Republicans

The President has broad constitutional power to take military action in response to the terrorist attacks on the United States on September 11, 2001. Congress has acknowledged this inherent executive power in both the War Powers Resolution and the Joint Resolution passed by Congress on September 14, 2001.

The President has constitutional power not only to retaliate against any person, organization, or State suspected of involvement in terrorist attacks on the United States, but also against foreign States suspected of harboring or supporting such organizations.

The President may deploy military force preemptively against terrorist organizations or the States that harbor or support them, whether or not they can be linked to the specific terrorist incidents of September 11.

Read more on Legal Opinions of the War Powers Resolution
THE PRESIDENT'S CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY TO CONDUCT MILITARY OPERATIONS AGAINST TERRORISTS AND NATIONS SUPPORTING THEM

 

[Contumacious]

if the Congress does not approve - this will save obama's face and this country from another unnecessary war.

Call your representatives NOW.

Yet another example of why conservatives have zero credibility: their lies.

No one is advocating, including the president, ‘going to war’ with Syria.

Yo fucktard


So Syria and Russia will not consider the act of launching Tomahawk missiles their way as an act of war?

Who would have thunketh.

.

 

[francoHFW]

Bush and Cheney and thePub propaganda Machine gave well over 50% of the country the belief that Saddam would send mushroom clouds our way and was involved in 9/11 Stupidest war ever, the French were right.

Op- this will make Pubs man up like adults- Foreign Policy is not a chickenhawk pissing contest to Dems.

 

[Vox]

Reread the exchange, Black label ( I think) claimed Bush LIED to get us in war, simply not true.

Bush DID NOT LIE - Iraq HAD WMDs and it was discovered, contrary to the libtards hysterical lies.

Even wikileaks releases confirmed that.

A lot of countries have WMDs. Should we start a campaign against them all?

Countries With Weapons of Mass Destruction - Intelligence Threat Assessments

That is not a question here.

The constellation of the reasons in 2003 is not the same as in 2013, neither is the knowledge of the participants.
as I have said before - 2003 war was not a right decision ( though it was not known at a time) but it was most certainly not a crime.

and if one would know where he would fell, he would lie a soft mattress there.
we all are smart when looking back.

But it means that it would be incredibly stupid to engage into Syrian war with the knowledge and experience of the last 12 years.

 

[bianco]

Obama has done the right thing.

This is NOT OUR WAR!!!!!

both sides are guilty of attrocities!!!!!

there are no good guys here, and we have no business there!!!

.......................................................................

Since WWI, the USA has been the force for good in the world.

Maybe it is time we quit. We certainly are broke.

But would Ronald Reagan have tolerated the gassing of children by a government. Would John F. Kennedy have?

If we back away from this one, we truly are abandoning the role we have tried to serve.

Do you want that?

The times they are a changin'...well, have changed actually.

 

[deltex1]

"Bush himself said the WMDs were not there, and he would not have invaded if he had know that. No amount of lying can get around that."


And how do you know that is not a lie????????????

 

[JakeStarkey]

Bush DID NOT LIE - Iraq HAD WMDs and it was discovered, contrary to the libtards hysterical lies.

Even wikileaks releases confirmed that.

A lot of countries have WMDs. Should we start a campaign against them all?

Countries With Weapons of Mass Destruction - Intelligence Threat Assessments

That is not a question here.

The constellation of the reasons in 2003 is not the same as in 2013, neither is the knowledge of the participants.
as I have said before - 2003 war was not a right decision ( though it was not known at a time) but it was most certainly not a crime.

and if one would know where he would fell, he would lie a soft mattress there.
we all are smart when looking back.

But it means that it would be incredibly stupid to engage into Syrian war with the knowledge and experience of the last 12 years.

How? You make assertions without evidence, like almost every reactionary board.

 

[bianco]

But it means that it would be incredibly stupid to engage into Syrian war with the knowledge and experience of the last 12 years.

#####

100% correct.

 

[Vox]

Syria is a small, poor country with few resources that is a prime candidate to use CW when its existence is threatened by a superpower for no reason. In the end, what other defense do they have?

we should not engage into Syrian war. Let the others do the cleaning.

we will just watch and comment.

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

Barack Obama on Syria: text in full - Telegraph

Here's my question for every member of Congress and every member of the global community: What message will we send if a dictator can gas hundreds of children to death in plain sight and pay no price? What's the purpose of the international system that we've built if a prohibition on the use of chemical weapons that has been agreed to by the governments of 98 per cent of the world's people and approved overwhelmingly by the Congress of the United States is not enforced?

Make no mistake – this has implications beyond chemical warfare. If we won't enforce accountability in the face of this heinous act, what does it say about our resolve to stand up to others who flout fundamental international rules? To governments who would choose to build nuclear arms? To terrorist who would spread biological weapons? To armies who carry out genocide?

Like Obama said, just because we punish and destroy them for CW usage doesn't mean other countries would not follow this lead, if their existence were threatened like Syria's was. It is a last-ditch effort of desperation that is the issue, when they shouldn't have been put in that position in the first place.

 

[Freewill]

if the Congress does not approve - this will save obama's face and this country from another unnecessary war.

Call your representatives NOW.

Yet another example of why conservatives have zero credibility: their lies.

No one is advocating, including the president, ‘going to war’ with Syria.

Yo fucktard


So Syria and Russia will not consider the act of launching Tomahawk missiles their way as an act of war?

Who would have thunketh.

.

See you need a lesson in the liberal lexicon. First war must mean putting boots on the ground, not just blowing people to kingdom come. It goes with their nature. If they can kill a person in Pakistan from a bunker in Nevada that is not war, that is merely a real first person video game. Second terrorism is bad real bad. Planting bombs is bad. On the other hand it is not terrorism to launch missiles into another country as has happened to Israel for many years. Or it is not bad to launch missiles in ally countries and blow to pieces a "maybe" legit target and those around him as this President has.