Obama needs a new diversion-Syria screwed up

Discussion in 'Too Hot for Swamp Gas' started by gatordowneast, Aug 27, 2013.

  1. asuragator
    Offline

    asuragator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2009
    Messages:
    20,536
    Likes Received:
    4,090
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +6,082
    Let me state clearly, I am not a fan of war, especially when it so often isn't one of necessity. That said, if he's going to go, yes, he should get congressional approval. However, the president actually has sixty-days (well technically 90) after the start of a conflict to get congressional approval.
  2. HallGator
    Offline

    HallGator Administrator VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    43,598
    Likes Received:
    945
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Outer Limits
    Ratings Received:
    +3,702
    War Powers Resolution or not Lincoln had no authority to send troops against the South that I am aware of. You call it an insurrection and others call it a legal secession which was only decided by the use of force rather than legal means.


    Edited to add this is not to justify anything Obama may be doing. I was against intervention in Syria and I against intervention in Libya.
  3. uftaipan
    Online

    uftaipan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2007
    Messages:
    4,325
    Likes Received:
    322
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    San Diego, CA
    Ratings Received:
    +1,608
    Not too long ago I read a book on this very topic. Lincoln did have legal authority to call militias into federal service and deploy troops under the Constitution and specifically the Insurrection Act of 1807. Now that should not suggest that everything he did during the Civil War was in accordance with his specified executive powers. For example, he suspended habeas corpus without legislation -- an act specifically prohibited by the Constitution. He also assumed some Congressional powers such as appropriating funds without legislation if memory serves me correctly. His primary justification for these acts was that the only way to preserve the Constitution was to go around it here and there; otherwise, the republic would fall to pieces, and the Constitution would have no meaning anyway.

    I can certainly see the need for emergency war measures that give the President such powers temporarily. But is what's going on in Syria a national emergency in the United States? What actual reason can the President have for not calling Congress back into session, showing them the evidence, and giving them 72 hours to debate whether or not to spend our national blood and treasure on this? No reason that I can think of. And "The Congress doesn't like me" is not a reason.
  4. g8trjax
    Offline

    g8trjax Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2007
    Messages:
    3,122
    Likes Received:
    83
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings Received:
    +381
    Is Nobel demanding his peace prize back?
  5. VAg8r1
    Offline

    VAg8r1 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2007
    Messages:
    5,958
    Likes Received:
    41
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings Received:
    +158
    FYI - The War Powers Act mandates that the President consult with Congress prior to committing US troops. It does not require authorization from Congress. There is a difference. Following is the exact legislative language.

    Obama didn't need Congressional authorization to bomb Libya and he would not need authorization to do the same with respect to Syria so long as he consults with Congress prior to using force.
  6. uftaipan
    Online

    uftaipan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2007
    Messages:
    4,325
    Likes Received:
    322
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    San Diego, CA
    Ratings Received:
    +1,608
    Actually, that is a common misconception. What the law says is this:

    The 60-day requirement you are referring to in the case of the third scenario, a national emergency et al, to give the president enough time to get ahead of the crisis prior to getting Congressional approval. It is not, and never was, intended as a blank check for the President to conduct whatever war he feels like against anyone he doesn't like for 60 days.

  7. GatorBen
    Offline

    GatorBen Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2007
    Messages:
    6,885
    Likes Received:
    452
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +1,914
    Given that every President since it was passed has taken the official position that the War Powers Resolution is unconstitutional, I'm not sure that the Obama administration taking the position that he is not bound by it should be terribly surprising.
  8. uftaipan
    Online

    uftaipan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2007
    Messages:
    4,325
    Likes Received:
    322
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    San Diego, CA
    Ratings Received:
    +1,608
    Read the portions I quoted please. They govern the use of hostile action, such as bombing. You are quoting a different section that governs the reporting and consultation requirements for the mere introduction of U.S. troops into a foreign country. For example, In 1992 President Bush was acting within the law (whether you agree with the decision or not) to introduce troops into Somalia for humanitarian purposes. The discussion is about bombing Syria, not putting troops into potential harms way for the purposes of humanitarian action or noncombatant evacuation.
  9. HallGator
    Offline

    HallGator Administrator VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    43,598
    Likes Received:
    945
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Outer Limits
    Ratings Received:
    +3,702
    The problem with him treating it as an insurrection was that was his take on it and far from being clearly established. The Southern states truly felt they were justified in leaving a union which they had voluntarily joined. As I said the issue was decided by military might and, as I am sure you are aware, still being argued to this day. While I am glad we are still one country the cost of keeping it that way was staggering. Most especially to the defeated both Whites and Blacks.

    Anyway I should not have brought this up and will let it go. Took it too much off topic.
  10. PIMking
    Offline

    PIMking New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2009
    Messages:
    10,528
    Likes Received:
    894
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Tuscaloosa, AL (Ft. Myers)
    Ratings Received:
    +894
    Let em kill eachother and let god sort em out
  11. leogator
    Online

    leogator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2008
    Messages:
    2,418
    Likes Received:
    39
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Melbourne, FL
    Ratings Received:
    +158
    Or it might mean that we are organizing a joint response with our allies. It does take time to have everybody's assets in place and to work out logistics.
  12. OklahomaGator
    Online

    OklahomaGator Moderator VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    34,923
    Likes Received:
    1,244
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Miami, OK
    Ratings Received:
    +2,331
    If you draw a line in the sand and say that crossing it will lead to an American response than working things out with our allies and getting assets in place has to be done ahead of time, even before you draw the line in the sand.

    You cross the line you are going to get kicked in the nuts, today or tomorrow, not 3 weeks later after sipping tea and playing golf with our buddies.
  13. gatordowneast
    Offline

    gatordowneast Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    11,747
    Likes Received:
    303
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +985
  14. fastsix
    Offline

    fastsix Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2007
    Messages:
    6,494
    Likes Received:
    246
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Seattle
    Ratings Received:
    +1,099
    Why does 3 weeks matter? Dead is dead today or 3 weeks from today. As long as it's clear that anything we do is because they used chemical weapons, then the message is sent. What would be stupid would be an immediate knee jerk reaction before we have all the facts and support of other countries.

    ...and I'm sure had Obama responded with an immediate knee jerk reaction the same people criticizing him for not acting quickly enough, would be criticizing him for acting without thinking. No matter what Obama does the right wingers are going to find fault with it.
    • Like Like x 1
  15. Gatorrick22
    Offline

    Gatorrick22 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    33,148
    Likes Received:
    2,523
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +4,621
    Wag the Dog time for our commie-in-thief.
  16. g8trjax
    Offline

    g8trjax Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2007
    Messages:
    3,122
    Likes Received:
    83
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings Received:
    +381
  17. tideh8rGator
    Offline

    tideh8rGator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2007
    Messages:
    3,502
    Likes Received:
    61
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Stuck in the heart of crimson darkness
    Ratings Received:
    +371
    I personally hope the GOP Congress keeps its hands off this thing altogether. Let obsama go down the tubes on this thing all on his own.

    This is a LOSE-LOSE-LOSE scenario for him.

    1. IF it is a false-flag op by the opposition to make us shoot at the wrong guys, he starts an unnecessary, misguided war that likely escalates all around the Mideast on FALSE PRETENSES. While going on TV (and sending biden there too) to wag the dog against assad based on bad info from our "intelligence" sources. And it will establish another jihadist AQ state on Israel's doorstep.

    BUSH WASN'T THAT DUMB.

    2. He moves against assad and alienates the whackjob 20%-30% of his base who thinks kum-ba-yah is always The Solution, and the 68% or so of Americans who oppose the action. And hell's hag will either feel compelled to support him (political suicide) or oppose him (further splitting the party of forward). Quack-limp-quack-limp...

    3. He moves against assad and the whole Mideast is thrown into a level of chaos which turns the rest of the world against us even more, while making him look like a ham-handed liar for his apology tour and the like. When obsama's missiles blow up little kids in Damascus, his Nobel prize will look like a cruel joke and he will be exposed as the blunt, crude, callous thug he really is.

    Boehner and the GOP Congress should tell him, "Sorry, big boy, you're on your own on this one" and LET HIM TAKE THE HEAT. That way, when it goes badly, he won't be able to blame our involvement on Congress instead of his own self. The way he normally does... trying to shift blame elsewhere.

    I see this as the Katrina of obsama.

    LOL, FWIW, I want assad turned into electrons. But I am quite happy to let obsama and co. do the dirty work and take the heat. ;)
  18. gatordowneast
    Offline

    gatordowneast Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    11,747
    Likes Received:
    303
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +985
    Just watched the Biden link above. He's such a phony. Perfect as VP for the clown we reelected. Probably Obama's biggest insurance policy. Listening to Obama lecture has gotten Old...Americans could take Biden for maybe a month. He's awful.
  19. icequeen
    Offline

    icequeen Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 21, 2013
    Messages:
    4,891
    Likes Received:
    2,126
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Buffalo, NY
    Ratings Received:
    +3,533
    Just saw on the news that apparently now pro-government supporters hacked the NYT, Twitter....imagine if they start hacking banking sites. It's like they're almost asking for it now, because that can be seen as an attack if they go after the military computers, government programs, banking software, etc.
  20. orangeblueorangeblue
    Offline

    orangeblueorangeblue Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2007
    Messages:
    57,079
    Likes Received:
    596
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +2,879
    They didn't hack Twitter or NYT, they hacked a domain registrar.

Share This Page