Obama to seek congress approval

[Katzndogz]

I'm surprised how much talk there is by congressmen on regular news media about impeaching Obama -- so no, I don't think he'll ask for their vote and then refuse to obey it!

What surprised me is that the California democrats are pretty united in voting against a strike on Syria.

WTF! Xavier Bercerra was just on the news speaking for the democrats saying they were going to oppose obama's use of force. Of course, as a democrat, he could be lying.

 

[Circe]

Kerry might not appreciate being castrated in public either.

Kerry is running for president again.

The presidency isn't the be or end all. Very seldom do men, particularly men like Kerry, appreciate being humiliated in such a very public way. What obama did to Kerry is like making him put on polka dot overalls and a red squeaky nose then go out there.

Oh, I agree. But I still think Kerry is running for president: how very "presidential" he looked and sounded, the news/op articles were saying.

I think that is exactly WHY Obama humiliated him. He did not care for Kerry taking over foreign policy that way! Obama had not decided; Kerry was "carry"ing on and on about how we must-must-must go to war soonest against these vile villains blah blah blah, and Obama didn't like that: it's a policy takeover.

So he whacked Kerry right out of the water. That's what I think, anyway.

 

[NoNukes]

I'm surprised how much talk there is by congressmen on regular news media about impeaching Obama -- so no, I don't think he'll ask for their vote and then refuse to obey it!

I haven't seen America so united about something since 9/11. If the people's wishes aren't listened to on this one we will have blatant proof that we have lost control of America and that our government is no longer by the people or for the people. Sad.

See how Obama is uniting America?

 

[Synthaholic]

Bush screwed the pooch by getting the UN, an international coalition, and Congress, behind him when he invaded Iraq.

Obama is redeeming us by openly saying that, since the UN disagrees with him, he doesn't need them, nor does he need Congress, and he won't even lead from behind like he did in Libya, he will just act because, despite the fact that no nation has ever acted in the past when chemical weapons were used, we have to do it because history demands it.

Sorry, I got lost trying to figure that one out, can you explain it?

No, you are WRONG on President G W Bush getting the UN'S approval.

We DID NOT get the UN'S approval for the Iraqi War, and as far as the UN is concerned they stand by the Iraqi invasion BY President GW Bush as being an ILLEGAL WAR.

We had the UN approval because of the numerous resolutions. You might not want to admit that, but that doesn't make it go away.

False.

 

[Circe]

See how Obama is uniting America?

He's uniting us pretty good on Obamacare, too.

Reminds me of the drunkard prez Andrew Johnson after the Civil War. The country reunited pretty well on the basis that they all really, really despised that fool Johnson.

Actually.... they impeached him.

Hm, there's a hopeful thought.

 

[Vox]

No, you are WRONG on President G W Bush getting the UN'S approval.

We DID NOT get the UN'S approval for the Iraqi War, and as far as the UN is concerned they stand by the Iraqi invasion BY President GW Bush as being an ILLEGAL WAR.

We had the UN approval because of the numerous resolutions. You might not want to admit that, but that doesn't make it go away.

False.

true

 

[Synthaholic]

We had the UN approval because of the numerous resolutions. You might not want to admit that, but that doesn't make it go away.

False.

true

False. They were not war resolutions.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

False.

true

False. They were not war resolutions.

So, then what were the "serious consequences" spoken of in resolution 1441?

 

[Vox]

False.

true

False. They were not war resolutions.

they did not have to be. they gave the US free hand.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

Obama's never advocated for sending ground troops nor would any be needed.

I am not advocating ground troops...just a robust air attack along the line General Keene advocates. Kill his Air Force/runways. Deplete armor and artillery...even future odds so diplomatic solution becomes more inevitable...if that is possible in the ME.

yes that what we need to do.

now, what will putin do, in response?

Trajan has a pretty fair point. We do not operate in a vacuum.

Syria is effectively a client state of Putin's Russia. So, every action and every INaction has consequences.

 

[Vox]

Therefore - the war was LEGAL and AUTHORIZED by SC resolutions 678 and 1441.
PERIOD[/SIZE][/B]

The Constitution does not give the UN the power to declare war on behalf of the US, and the US has no such treaty which allows it to. And neither made it defense of the United States, which is the only Constitutional justification for use of the US military.

Sorry, it was an illegal war.

no, it was not. It was approved by Congress and within the US Constitution - so a perfectly legal war BOTH from internal side ( per Constitution) and internationally ( per UN SC resolutions)

 

[IlarMeilyr]

I laugh a little whenever the leftists end up seeing us as "the policeman of the world."

But I only laugh a little.

When a Republican espouses it, he or she is labeled a jingoistic warhawk.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

Therefore - the war was LEGAL and AUTHORIZED by SC resolutions 678 and 1441.
PERIOD[/SIZE][/B]

The Constitution does not give the UN the power to declare war on behalf of the US, and the US has no such treaty which allows it to. And neither made it defense of the United States, which is the only Constitutional justification for use of the US military.

Sorry, it was an illegal war.

no, it was not. It was approved by Congress and within the US Constitution - so a perfectly legal war BOTH from internal side ( per Constitution) and internationally ( per UN SC resolutions)

It was indeed authorized by Congress. Nothing else required to make it "legal."

 

[Synthaholic]

true

False. They were not war resolutions.

they did not have to be. they gave the US free hand.

False.

 

[Contumacious]

The Constitution does not give the UN the power to declare war on behalf of the US, and the US has no such treaty which allows it to. And neither made it defense of the United States, which is the only Constitutional justification for use of the US military.

Sorry, it was an illegal war.

no, it was not. It was approved by Congress and within the US Constitution - so a perfectly legal war BOTH from internal side ( per Constitution) and internationally ( per UN SC resolutions)

It was indeed authorized by Congress. Nothing else required to make it "legal."

Bad news Mr Dingle Berry.

Legal mean that Congress had the authority to delegate the authority. They don't.

Learn, go forth and sin no more.

.

 

[kaz]

Therefore - the war was LEGAL and AUTHORIZED by SC resolutions 678 and 1441.
PERIOD[/SIZE][/B]

The Constitution does not give the UN the power to declare war on behalf of the US, and the US has no such treaty which allows it to. And neither made it defense of the United States, which is the only Constitutional justification for use of the US military.

Sorry, it was an illegal war.

no, it was not. It was approved by Congress and within the US Constitution - so a perfectly legal war BOTH from internal side ( per Constitution) and internationally ( per UN SC resolutions)

The only justification that the Constitution gives Congress to declare war is defense of the United States. It doesn't give them the right to declare war on anyone they feel like declaring war on or to protect our interests.

It was illegal.

 

[kaz]

The Constitution does not give the UN the power to declare war on behalf of the US, and the US has no such treaty which allows it to. And neither made it defense of the United States, which is the only Constitutional justification for use of the US military.

Sorry, it was an illegal war.

no, it was not. It was approved by Congress and within the US Constitution - so a perfectly legal war BOTH from internal side ( per Constitution) and internationally ( per UN SC resolutions)

It was indeed authorized by Congress. Nothing else required to make it "legal."

Other than it is to be for the purpose of to "provide for the common defence."

I like how the Right talks about actually reading the Constitution and they are the ones who believe that it limits government. Except when it doesn't. Once you open that door and add the "whatever they want" clause, you can't turn around and tell the left they can't do that with "general welfare."

 

[Contumacious]

the constitution does not give the un the power to declare war on behalf of the us, and the us has no such treaty which allows it to. And neither made it defense of the united states, which is the only constitutional justification for use of the us military.

Sorry, it was an illegal war.

no, it was not. It was approved by congress and within the us constitution - so a perfectly legal war both from internal side ( per constitution) and internationally ( per un sc resolutions)

the only justification that the constitution gives congress to declare war is defense of the united states. It doesn't give them the right to declare war on anyone they feel like declaring war on or to protect our interests.

It was illegal.

 

[Katzndogz]

For the common defense is defense of the states. Not the common defense of the entire world.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Why hasn't Boehner called the Rs back from their vacation?

Why hasn't Reid called the Ds back from theirs?

This is an issue of national security and the Ds have returned to DC.

They have not. they are still off planning their next campaign, just like the other guys.

Not the Rs though.

Why not?

Because they don't live inside your head?