10 Congresscritters bring suit against Administration

[/dev/null]

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0611/57032.html

 

Are Congresscritters starting to grow a pair and are now willing to exercise their Constitutional rights and responsibilities?

[DC Tom]

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0611/57032.html

 

Are Congresscritters starting to grow a pair and are now willing to exercise their Constitutional rights and responsibilities?

 

It's about time the War Powers Act went up in front of a judge. Not that the court will rule on the act itself...but the fact that it's in any form being tested is a good start.

 

But if the congresscritters are really suing to "stop the war", as the article says, they're idiots. The Constitution isn't binding on, say, the French. I hope the text of the suit says something more along the lines of ending US participation, rather than "ending the war".

 

Given my cynical views on the intelligence of congresscritters, I wouldn't bet on it, though.

[OCinBuffalo]

It's about time the War Powers Act went up in front of a judge. Not that the court will rule on the act itself...but the fact that it's in any form being tested is a good start.

 

But if the congresscritters are really suing to "stop the war", as the article says, they're idiots. The Constitution isn't binding on, say, the French. I hope the text of the suit says something more along the lines of ending US participation, rather than "ending the war".

 

Given my cynical views on the intelligence of congresscritters, I wouldn't bet on it, though.

Perhaps you can explain to me why we don't simply declare war on people? I never understood that, and it seems like the War Powers act attempts to get around it. We should have declared war on Afghanistan, and on Iraq, as we had legal pretense for both. 9/11 and Iraq breached their surrender agreement with us on too many occasions to count, respectively. We agreed to a cessation of hostilities, and accepted a conditional surrender. If those conditions were broken, we go right back to 1991. But, because don't formally declare war, or re-declare it, we open the door and the cavalcade of conner morons pour through.

 

Spare me the "we don't want to look like a big nation picking on smaller ones" I mean honestly: how else would you define our foreign policy over the last 10 years...especially that now that we are at war in 5 Arab countries? I am quite certain the Libyan who just got sauced by a drone rocket doesn't care that we didn't declare war before saucing him. So who exactly are we doing this for...and why do we care what they think? Really. Why do I care what some pissant in a pissant country thinks about us taking out scumbags? What's the worst they can do? Not come to our aid in a war? Well, they already do that...so what should I actually be concerned with?

 

(Where are the far-left peaceniks now? Where are the "No Blood for Oil" signs? Does anyone need further confirmation of just how unprincipled and phony these people are?)

Edited June 16, 2011 by OCinBuffalo

[GG]

(Where are the far-left peaceniks now? Where are the "No Blood for Oil" signs? Does anyone need further confirmation of just how unprincipled and phony these people are?)

 

On the opposite pole of the unprincipled & phony people who had no problem with US military engagement prior to 2009.

[OCinBuffalo]

On the opposite pole of the unprincipled & phony people who had no problem with US military engagement prior to 2009.

 

That's why I enjoy being a principled person. I understand that sometimes a President has to make a call, and usually the info he's basing that call on is incomplete and/or inaccurate, Republican or Democrat. That's what happened with Iraq, and that is what is happening, I think, with Afghanistan and Libya now.

 

I understand that because as a leader, I know that most leaders, at every level, have to make calls based on incomplete and/or inaccurate info.

 

Conversely, there are people on the left who are consistently anti-war and therefore also principled people.

 

The problem is: you can count them on your fingers.

[Dave_In_Norfolk]

Perhaps you can explain to me why we don't simply declare war on people? I never understood that, and it seems like the War Powers act attempts to get around it. We should have declared war on Afghanistan, and on Iraq, as we had legal pretense for both. 9/11 and Iraq breached their surrender agreement with us on too many occasions to count, respectively. We agreed to a cessation of hostilities, and accepted a conditional surrender. If those conditions were broken, we go right back to 1991. But, because don't formally declare war, or re-declare it, we open the door and the cavalcade of conner morons pour through.

 

Spare me the "we don't want to look like a big nation picking on smaller ones" I mean honestly: how else would you define our foreign policy over the last 10 years...especially that now that we are at war in 5 Arab countries? I am quite certain the Libyan who just got sauced by a drone rocket doesn't care that we didn't declare war before saucing him. So who exactly are we doing this for...and why do we care what they think? Really. Why do I care what some pissant in a pissant country thinks about us taking out scumbags? What's the worst they can do? Not come to our aid in a war? Well, they already do that...so what should I actually be concerned with?

 

(Where are the far-left peaceniks now? Where are the "No Blood for Oil" signs? Does anyone need further confirmation of just how unprincipled and phony these people are?)

 

So, while Quadaffy was getting ready to murder thousands of people you would rather have waited for Congress to vote? Really, why do you want a declaration of war for? Why would that make you feel better?

[DC Tom]

So, while Quadaffy was getting ready to murder thousands of people you would rather have waited for Congress to vote? Really, why do you want a declaration of war for? Why would that make you feel better?

 

Somebody please put Dave down for his nap.

[3rdnlng]

Somebody please put Dave down for his nap.

 

You can eliminate the "for his nap" part. He is a perfect example of why abortions shouldn't be banned................................at least retroactive ones.

[pBills]

I laugh at this because it's probably the same people that were saying the Administration were acting fast enough.

[DC Tom]

I laugh at this because it's probably the same people that were saying the Administration were acting fast enough.

 

Or supported it until the realized they're "fiscal conservatives" and war costs money.

[OCinBuffalo]

Or supported it until the realized they're "fiscal conservatives" and war costs money.

Nope. I simply want us to free ourselves of trying to make cheap political points, as BishopHedd and, not including hedd, the cowardly posters who all ran away from this board as soon as the surge worked were doing with Iraq, when the subject of war comes up.

 

I want most people to accept the fact that on the topic of war in general, and military action specifically, they have no idea WTF they are talking about....and they should take the word of the professionals...who have been doing it every day for the last 30 years over that of the Huffington Post or Sean Hannity.

 

But most of all, I want people to understand that President, the office, not the man, has to make these decisions and does not make them lightly. As a country we can do without the vilification and the utter nonsense. War happens. Grow up.

[DC Tom]

Nope. I simply want us to free ourselves of trying to make cheap political points, as BishopHedd and, not including hedd, the cowardly posters who all ran away from this board as soon as the surge worked were doing with Iraq, when the subject of war comes up.

 

I want most people to accept the fact that on the topic of war in general, and military action specifically, they have no idea WTF they are talking about....and they should take the word of the professionals...who have been doing it every day for the last 30 years over that of the Huffington Post or Sean Hannity.

 

But most of all, I want people to understand that President, the office, not the man, has to make these decisions and does not make them lightly. As a country we can do without the vilification and the utter nonsense. War happens. Grow up.

 

And I was talking about the congresscritters.

 

But if you want to talk about Heddly...fine. He's an idiot.

[Dave_In_Norfolk]

Somebody please put Dave down for his nap.

What?? Am I posting too much for you ?

 

 

Oh the irony! Mr. 24/7 on the board wants a poster to go away! Seriously DCTom, what year was it that you went a whole day without posting your ignorant rants here? I'm guessing early 2000's.

 

Nope. I simply want us to free ourselves of trying to make cheap political points, as BishopHedd and, not including hedd, the cowardly posters who all ran away from this board as soon as the surge worked were doing with Iraq, when the subject of war comes up.

 

I want most people to accept the fact that on the topic of war in general, and military action specifically, they have no idea WTF they are talking about....and they should take the word of the professionals...who have been doing it every day for the last 30 years over that of the Huffington Post or Sean Hannity.

 

But most of all, I want people to understand that President, the office, not the man, has to make these decisions and does not make them lightly. As a country we can do without the vilification and the utter nonsense. War happens. Grow up.

Hold on, stop right there. This is why people call you stupid all the time. Earlier you didn't want the president making the decision, you wanted Congress too. So make up your mind

[DC Tom]

What?? Am I posting too much for you ?

 

No, you just seem cranky and irritable and more nonsensical than usual.

[Dave_In_Norfolk]

No, you just seem cranky and irritable and more nonsensical than usual.

 

 

Better?

[OCinBuffalo]

What?? Am I posting too much for you ?

 

 

Oh the irony! Mr. 24/7 on the board wants a poster to go away! Seriously DCTom, what year was it that you went a whole day without posting your ignorant rants here? I'm guessing early 2000's.

 

 

Hold on, stop right there. This is why people call you stupid all the time. Earlier you didn't want the president making the decision, you wanted Congress too. So make up your mind

Not once since I have been on this board have I ever said such a thing as "I want Congress making war decisions".

 

I want it to work as it is supposed to work = Congress declares war, or they don't. They get one vote, and then they are out of the loop. The President runs the war, and he succeeds or fails without hindrance. It's on the President to make the right calls, and he alone should take the credit/blame for them. If's he's going to have all the responsibility, then he needs all the authority.

 

That is the reality of leadership. Notice that people making the biggest noise about war, are the very same people that have never lead anything, or have consistently failed at leadership, and nobody would follow to a free beer tent.

 

EDIT: and go ahead and define "people that call me stupid" and "all the time", I dare you. Should be good for a laugh.

Edited June 22, 2011 by OCinBuffalo

[....lybob]

So, while Quadaffy was getting ready to murder thousands of people you would rather have waited for Congress to vote? Really, why do you want a declaration of war for? Why would that make you feel better?

By people read armed rebels not that I have any love for Quadaffy but arm 10,000 Scots and have them march on London or let a State try to secede from the Union, and you will see killing to whatever point is necessary to put it down. This was not a crack down on peaceful protesters it was a response to an insurrection.

[Buftex]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/22/mitch-mcconnell-republicans-isolationism_n_882082.html

[DC Tom]

By people read armed rebels not that I have any love for Quadaffy but arm 10,000 Scots and have them march on London or let a State try to secede from the Union, and you will see killing to whatever point is necessary to put it down. This was not a crack down on peaceful protesters it was a response to an insurrection.

 

Point of note: at first, he was bombing unarmed civilian protesters. Only later did they become armed protesters and, in short order, rebels.

 

Another point of note: our mission isn't to get rid of Qadaffi...quite the contrary, that's explicitly NOT the mission (except when it implicitly is, with the footnote that it's not, really, but our fingers might be crossed behind our back. Maybe. It's all NATO's doing anyway...we think.) Hence an actual declaration of war would be...irrelevant and ludicrous, really. A declaration of war would require some sort of vague semblance of an attempt at a coherent policy with respect to Qadaffi.

[IDBillzFan]

A declaration of war would require some sort of vague semblance of an attempt at a coherent policy with respect to Qadaffi.

Y'know, I don't know why you find it necessary to be critical of everything the president does. I'm starting to think you're just another ideologue who wants Obama to fail because he's a liberal.He's done some good stuff, y'know. Created 2.1 million jobs just last week. Not to mention, he killed Usama Bin Freaking Laden, okay? Single handedly. While rapeling down a rope from a helicopter he built with his own hands. And shot Usama with bullets he forged from the very planes that were flown into the Twin Towers. Killed him so bad that the entire media world stopped spelling his name with an O.

 

So back off.