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

[Chef Jim]

i don't think it will but if it does i'd say obama's doing everything he can to avoid it and is willing to take a beating for it. bush did precisely the opposite.

 

Really? How non-partisian of you. Obama has shown he absolutely has no idea how to take responsibility for anything. If it does happen and if he does take a beating for it I can pretty much guarantee he will not take his beating willingly or take it at all.

[birdog1960]

Yep. Isn't that pretty much what the Republican leadership is saying, too?

nope. if we go to war it's due to the powderkeg that is mid east with iran, syria, hamas and hezbollah threatening the entire region (with china and russia pulling strings) and worldwide oil production therefore placing the global economy at serious risk. and i hope this time the true reasons are made clear to the public.

[run dat back]

So even though he asked Congress, he's basically saying he'll do it regardless of what they say. I just read an article saying it's bad for a president to seek Congress's approval of limited military strikes - on the contrary, I think it should be required. We have not been attacked, Syria does not present a direct threat to us at this time, even our allies in Britain want no part of this. I think it's dangerous to allow a president to order the military to strike a sovereign nation in this kind of scenario. That's too much power for one person.

[TakeYouToTasker]

So even though he asked Congress, he's basically saying he'll do it regardless of what they say. I just read an article saying it's bad for a president to seek Congress's approval of limited military strikes - on the contrary, I think it should be required. We have not been attacked, Syria does not present a direct threat to us at this time, even our allies in Britain want no part of this. I think it's dangerous to allow a president to order the military to strike a sovereign nation in this kind of scenario. That's too much power for one person.

What? A President's bruised ego doesn't justify unilateral military action and hawkishness?

[/dev/null]

Passes 10-7 with one Present vote (great way for the newest Senator to make an impression). The Crypt Keeper, upset with the earler draft, gets his way with vague language that doesn't really prohibit anything.

 

I love how it takes thousands of pages of legislation for Stimulous®, Obamacare, Gun Control, & Amnesty for Illegals, but war authorization only takes 11

 

http://www.foreign.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/DAV13973.pdf

[IDBillzFan]

...and is willing to take a beating for it.

 

Obama? Take responsibility? :lol:

 

Man, the kool-aid drinkers don't come any more loyal than you.

[birdog1960]

Obama? Take responsibility? :lol:

 

Man, the kool-aid drinkers don't come any more loyal than you.

just stop. this is grown up stuff with the gravity of the situation and decision made clear to all observers. this is how it should be deliberated at the adult table.

[Doc]

I hope the House votes no. Because then Barry will be left with the decision all alone to make. And it will be on him and him alone.

[DC Tom]

nope. if we go to war it's due to the powderkeg that is mid east with iran, syria, hamas and hezbollah threatening the entire region (with china and russia pulling strings) and worldwide oil production therefore placing the global economy at serious risk. and i hope this time the true reasons are made clear to the public.

 

And those are the same reasons we went into Iraq.

 

Unbelievable.

[/dev/null]

I hope the House votes no. Because then Barry will be left with the decision all alone to make. And it will be on him and him alone.

 

And by him and him alone, you mean it's up to Obama to sign whatever piece of paper John Kerry, Chuck Hagel, and the DoD/Pentagon comes up with while Obama is on the back nine.

 

Fore!(ward)!

[DC Tom]

And by him and him alone, you mean it's up to Obama to sign whatever piece of paper John Kerry, Chuck Hagel, and the DoD/Pentagon comes up with while Obama is on the back nine.

 

Fore!(ward)!

 

I liked hearing Kerry explain how there won't be any ground troops involved...y'know, because he's apparently Secretary of Defense as well as State.

 

The only defense for that is that it's no more !@#$ed up than Rumsfeld's asshattery with regards to the State Department.,

[birdog1960]

"if the United States doesn't do this, senator, is it more or less likely that assad does this again? you want to answer that question?" and with that paul was officially relegated to the kids table. http://www.npr.org/2013/09/04/218811159/in-senate-rand-paul-and-john-mccain-differ-on-strikes-in-syria now he's vowing no filibuster

 

And those are the same reasons we went into Iraq.

 

Unbelievable.

really? were russia and china propping up saddam? hezbollah and iran? - wasn't saddam a sworn enemy? never heard bush make that case. thought it was all about wmd's that had not yet been used, and the terrorist attack on NYC which over half the us population linked to the war at the time

[Doc]

And by him and him alone, you mean it's up to Obama to sign whatever piece of paper John Kerry, Chuck Hagel, and the DoD/Pentagon comes up with while Obama is on the back nine.

 

Fore!(ward)!

He signed it, it's his.

"if the United States doesn't do this, senator, is it more or less likely that assad does this again? you want to answer that question?" and with that paul was officially relegated to the kids table. http://www.npr.org/2...trikes-in-syria now he's vowing no filibuster

Yeah, because "who gives a F" isn't a politically correct answer.

 

really? were russia and china propping up saddam? hezbollah and iran? - wasn't saddam a sworn enemy? never heard bush make that case. thought it was all about wmd's that had not yet been used, and the terrorist attack on NYC which over half the us population linked to the war at the time

Only to be used a decade later...in Syria.

[/dev/null]

He signed it, it's his.

Until it's spun like the red line. Where yeah he said it. But it wasn't really his red line

[birdog1960]

He signed it, it's his.

 

Yeah, because "who gives a F" isn't a politically correct answer.

 

 

Only to be used a decade later...in Syria.

you're a scientist, right. where's the evidence? they looked far and wide at enormous cost and you're asking for a leap of faith? in bush? rumsfeld? and since when is paul politically correct? this was like the boardroom scene in "network" i'm so fond of. oh, and by the way the israelis, saudi's, kuwaiti's and emirati's(?) care. a lot.. Edited September 5, 2013 by birdog1960

[/dev/null]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2411885/Revealed-Pentagon-knew-2012-75-000-GROUND-TROOPS-secure-Syrias-chemical-weapons-facilities.html

 

75,000 troops to secure Syrian chemical weapons

[birdog1960]

http://www.dailymail...facilities.html

 

75,000 troops to secure Syrian chemical weapons

yep. it's a sheit storm yet you have morons here questioning whether assad was set up. Edited September 5, 2013 by birdog1960

[B-Man]

Relations between the U.S. and Russia continue to spiral downwards over issues of war and peace, as Vladimir called John Kerry a liar:

 

In remarks that could raise tension further before he hosts President Barack Obama and other G20 leaders on Thursday, Putin also said U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry lied to Congress about the militant group al Qaeda’s role in the Syrian conflict.

 

“They lie beautifully, of course. I saw debates in Congress. A congressman asks Mr Kerry: ‘Is al Qaeda there?’ He says: ‘No, I am telling you responsibly that it is not’,” Putin said at a meeting of his human rights council in the Kremlin.

 

“Al Qaeda units are the main military echelon, and they know this,” he said, referring to the United States. “It was unpleasant and surprising for me – we talk to them, we proceed from the assumption that they are decent people. But he is lying and knows he is lying. It’s sad.”

http://legalinsurrection.com/2013/09/putin-say-kerry-lies-softens-blow-by-adding-beautifully/

[birdog1960]

http://legalinsurrec...ng-beautifully/

so that makes obama's deliberation and failure to immediately pull the trigger more suspect how exactly? and were to take putin's word as gospel? he should dictate our foreign policy?

[B-Man]

so that makes obama's deliberation and failure to immediately pull the trigger more suspect how exactly? and were to take putin's word as gospel? he should dictate our foreign policy?

 

No one said any of that gibberish......................why do you constantly put your bias into others replies ?

 

 

 

The Foreign Relations Committee’s Second Vote

 

Today the Senate Foreign Relations Committee voted 10-7 to authorize a limited use of military force in Syria. Those voting for the resolution included Chris Coons, Robert Menendez, Barbara Boxer, Benjamin Cardin, Jeanne Shaheen, Dick Durbin and Tim Kaine, all Democrats, joined by Republicans Bob Corker, John McCain and Jeff Flake. The resolution was amended at McCain’s insistence that puts the U.S. on the side of the rebels, in principle, at least. You get the feeling the Democrats didn’t much care what, exactly, the resolution said.

 

Democrats Tom Udall and Chris Murphy voted “No,” along with Republicans James Risch–did you know there is a Senator named James Risch? I didn’t–Marco Rubio, Ron Johnson, John Barasso and Rand Paul. Edward Markey of Massachusetts voted “Present,” for reasons it is hard to imagine.

 

Rand Paul offered an amendment to the resolution containing the following language:

It is the sense of the Senate that the President does not have the power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.

 

Paul’s amendment was voted down 14-4, which tells you all you need to know about how the politics of military force have shifted. In 2008, candidate Barack Obama answered questions posed by the Boston Globe, including this one:

Q.

In what circumstances, if any, would the president have constitutional authority to bomb Iran without seeking a use-of-force authorization from Congress? (Specifically, what about the strategic bombing of suspected nuclear sites — a situation that does not involve stopping an IMMINENT threat?

 

A.

The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation

.

 

Today, the Democrats refuse to endorse a verbatim quote from Barack Obama on his signature issue–opposition to the executive’s use of force abroad. Have they actually changed their minds? Or were their hysterical attacks on President Bush completely insincere? Who knows? But if the Democrats aren’t embarrassed by Senator Paul’s gambit, they should be.

 

http://www.powerline...ed (Power Line)

 

 

 

.

Edited September 5, 2013 by B-Man