Which Gas attack did POTUS Really Really Really Mean Would be a Trigge

[DC Tom]

OF OBAMA ADMINISTRATION STATEMENTS ON SYRIA

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=clcl0VZhl24

 

Important point that everyone seems to be missing: there's a long historical list of "use of force other than war" where the President has committed the armed forces without Congressional approval. Reagan never did (e.g. in bombing Libya), nor did Carter (for Eagle Claw). All the 20th Century operations I can think of, all the way back to the interventions in Nicaragua, Cuba, and Mexico, Hell, even FDR had the US Navy committed against Germany before Congress authorized our entry into World War II. I can't recall Congress granting prior authorization for the President to command the military to intervene in an ongoing conflict.

[Joe Miner]

Important point that everyone seems to be missing: there's a long historical list of "use of force other than war" where the President has committed the armed forces without Congressional approval. Reagan never did (e.g. in bombing Libya), nor did Carter (for Eagle Claw). All the 20th Century operations I can think of, all the way back to the interventions in Nicaragua, Cuba, and Mexico, Hell, even FDR had the US Navy committed against Germany before Congress authorized our entry into World War II. I can't recall Congress granting prior authorization for the President to command the military to intervene in an ongoing conflict.

 

Is it too much for a leader just to make a decision?

 

If you want to bomb them, bomb them, don't wait for the UN to hold your hand, and when that fails put the decision before Congress who you previously stated you didn't need approval from.

 

Sometimes leaders have to go it alone. When no one else knows what to do, you have to step up and take charge. Some people will love you, some will hate you. But you don't lead based on others' approval.

 

Giant kitty.

 

*didn't realize the filter auto changes the word to kitty.

Edited September 11, 2013 by Joe Miner

[Nanker]

I can't recall Congress granting prior authorization for the President to command the military to intervene in an ongoing conflict.

Of course not. The War Powers Act provides certain license for the CIC to use the military for a finite period prior to getting Congressional approval to proceed further.

This Putz in Chief had on his girly-man pink dress and would only back up his crazy-azzed loud mouth boasting if Congress gave him the approval so when things went wrong he could throw THEM under the bus. He's done none of the requisite groundwork for building a multinational consensus on the appropriateness of responding the the gas attacks with International military action. He's back in school - doing the affirmative action thing again - showing up for the final where he reads the PPT that the rest of the team put together (but oh yeah - he gave the team a couple of his gem "ideas" to work with), and thinks he'll get an "A".

[DC Tom]

Of course not. The War Powers Act provides certain license for the CIC to use the military for a finite period prior to getting Congressional approval to proceed further.

 

War Powers Act was passed in 1973.

 

My point was that, even before the War Powers Act, "intervention" or "strikes" occurred routinely at the command of the President in the absence of Congressional authorization. I can't find one for the 1912 occupation of Nicaragua, for example, and the US Navy was already "intervening" actively in the North Atlantic well before December 11th, 1941.

 

I didn't bother going back before 1900...but I can't recall any military actions outside of declared wars or the Indian Wars where this would've been an issue in the 19th Century, anyway. As far as I know, Teddy Roosevelt set the precedent by ordering the Great White Fleet to sail despite Congress' refusal to authorize the sailing, then telling Congress "I command the military, you just fund it" and daring them to deny funding and strand it.

[B-Man]

Politico's Budoff Brown Offers Obama Speech Translation Service:

 

'What President Obama Said, What He Meant'

Apparently we can't grasp the full brilliance and nuance of Barack Obama's speeches without having someone from the establishment press telling us what he really meant to say when he said what he really said.

 

That's the impression one gets from reading "What President Obama said, what he meant" early Wednesday at the Politico. In it, along with an accompanying video dedicated to the same idea, we see Carrie Budoff Brown's exercise in explaining Obama's 15-minute speech on Syria to the ignormamuses of the world.

 

Her weakest translation concerns the extent to which Obama apparently assumed he'd automatically have support from the vast majority of Republicans, apparently because, as the web site's equally surprised Alex Isenstadt and Reid Epstein also believed two days ago ("'Party of Hawks,' Has Gone 'Dovish'"), they just love to go to war for any reason, no matter how incoherent or unplanned.

 

Read more: http://newsbusters.o...s#ixzz2ebzJpReM

[DC Tom]

And another thing...this is the first time I can EVER recall that a President had to go on TV and give a statement to the American people about why we need to strike punitively another country before actually ordering the strike.

[Koko78]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z-sdO6pwVHQ&feature=youtu.be

[B-Man]

LOL

 

 

Oops! Check out what Obama’s Truth Team tweeted about Romney and Syrian rebels last year

 

http://twitchy.com/2...bels-last-year/

 

 

 

 

 

OFA TruthTeam ‏@OFATruthTeam 22 Oct

.

Romney called for U.S. to arm Syrian rebels without regard to where those weapons might end up.

9:18 PM - 22 Oct 2012

 

 

Good thing the mainstream media was on the job during the 2012 campaign.

 

 

.

[Koko78]

LOL

 

 

Oops! Check out what Obama’s Truth Team tweeted about Romney and Syrian rebels last year

 

http://twitchy.com/2...bels-last-year/

 

Good thing the mainstream media was on the job during the 2012 campaign.

 

Hold the phone! Oblamblam and the CIA have been arming the "correct" rebels for a month now.

 

The CIA has been delivering light machine guns and other small arms to Syrian rebels for several weeks, following President Barack Obama's decision to arm the rebels.

 

...

 

The officials said the aid is delivered to commanders who have been vetted by the CIA, and the path of the weaponry is tracked through trusted parties within the country — though eventually, once they're in the hands of fighters, the U.S. loses sight of where the weapons go.

 

Of course, the Rebels do not seem to know anything about all this aid they're getting:

 

Top rebel commander Gen. Salim Idris told NPR on Thursday that rebels had received no such aid from the U.S. The CIA declined to comment.

 

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-202_162-57602575/report-cia-delivering-arms-to-syria-rebels/

 

Therefore Chosen One > Romney and his wife's horse.

[/dev/null]

Boots on the ground?

http://www.military.com/daily-news/2013/09/14/securing-syrias-weapons-may-require-us-troops.html?comp=7000023317828&rank=1

[DC Tom]

Boots on the ground?

http://www.military....23317828&rank=1

 

But that'll be okay, because we'll be the junior partner in a coalition led by Russia.

[Nanker]

Johnny Jet-Jocky McCain says, "No one wants American boots on the ground, nor will there be American boots on the ground, because there would be a (sic) impeachment of the president if they did that."

So, Kenneth Cole's tweet, "'Boots on the ground' or not, let's not forget about sandals, pumps, and loafers" looks prescient. Obviously McCain would authorize the military's use of sandals, pumps, and loafers to avoid the embarrassment of having to live up to his tough-as-rusty-nails radio talk.