carlfense Posted September 3, 2013 Share Posted September 3, 2013 OK...I read it again. He is saying (paraphrasing) "I have the power to do what I want but since everyone wants me to, I am going to go ask permission from congress". BUUUUTTTT.....back in 2008 he was adamant that the President does NOT have the power to act on his own to bomb a country without congressional permission unless we are under attack. Link to comment
carlfense Posted September 3, 2013 Share Posted September 3, 2013 Obama is spinning this as a national security concern because of the chemical weapons. This means the only way to get them is to go in with troops. Good Gawd, we can't afford it, and NOBODY WANTS TO GO. I don't think that you have to worry about going in with troops. Link to comment
AgMarauder04 Posted September 3, 2013 Share Posted September 3, 2013 Then why go in at all? Lofting a few cruise missiles won't accomplish a damn thing. Link to comment
zoogs Posted September 3, 2013 Share Posted September 3, 2013 Apparently not doing something tarnishes America's foreign esteem. Strange world, eh? "Please stick your noses in other people's business, America." I think Obama had to say that he could still go ahead with the strike without Congressional approval. It does seem a little hypocritical of him given how opposed he was to Bush's actions but appears to have been quite close to circumventing Congress. On the other hand he's not willing to give up this established ability of the executive branch because it would tie our hands in the future. Notably if there's another incident before the vote, he'll go ahead and commence the strikes. What's the deal with Britain? Is there really no possibility that they will reverse course? That seems kind of weird. Why isn't there a chance that the issue will come up for a vote again, given as it is a fluid situation, especially in terms of our understanding of what happened? Link to comment
carlfense Posted September 3, 2013 Share Posted September 3, 2013 Then why go in at all? Lofting a few cruise missiles won't accomplish a damn thing. Lofting a few cruise missiles isn't really "going in." Will it accomplish anything? I don't know a definite answer and neither does anyone else. Link to comment
BigRedBuster Posted September 3, 2013 Author Share Posted September 3, 2013 OK...I read it again. He is saying (paraphrasing) "I have the power to do what I want but since everyone wants me to, I am going to go ask permission from congress". BUUUUTTTT.....back in 2008 he was adamant that the President does NOT have the power to act on his own to bomb a country without congressional permission unless we are under attack. You are absolutely hilarious on this issue. You will defend this man to your death. YOU now are ignoring the part I underlined in the first place. I'll quote it again so that you won't miss it again. But senior administration officials briefing reporters at the White House later said that Obama still believes he has the legal authority to act without congressional support — meaning that a “no” vote would not necessarily handcuff his foreign policy. And they disputed that Obama risked setting a precedent that could limit the power of future occupants of the Oval Office. The part in red even makes it interesting. This is from a "senior administration official" so, I'm assuming they aren't wrong on Obama's stance. I haven't heard anyone getting fired for misquoting the President. Link to comment
carlfense Posted September 3, 2013 Share Posted September 3, 2013 You are absolutely hilarious on this issue. You will defend this man to your death. Nearly as hilarious as your desperate search for hypocrisy. This is from a "senior administration official" so, I'm assuming they aren't wrong on Obama's stance. I haven't heard anyone getting fired for misquoting the President. Uh, yuh. Link to comment
JJ Husker Posted September 3, 2013 Share Posted September 3, 2013 Carl- You are really starting to lose any credibility you might have had. Are you really going to continue to defend Obama's mishandling of this situation? It is plain to see that Obama's current position on use of force in the Mideast is contradicting what he claimed Bush should do in similar circumstances. On top of that, he is looking totally inept. Says they crossed the line but hasn't acted. It's almost as if he can't bring himself to pull the trigger. Don't get me wrong, I don't want to see the US involved in Syria. But, Obama is the one who was laying out consequences for crossing the line they crossed. He is in a no win situation now. He will be criticized (and rightly so) whether he acts or doesn't act. Might as well get used to it. Link to comment
zoogs Posted September 3, 2013 Share Posted September 3, 2013 Going on for some time now, live video of secretary of defense Chuck Hagel, secretary of state John kerry, and chairman of the joint chiefs of staff Gen. Martin Dempsey testifying before a Senate panel regarding Syria: http://nyti.ms/evj2MU Pretty neat. Link to comment
BigRedBuster Posted September 3, 2013 Author Share Posted September 3, 2013 You are absolutely hilarious on this issue. You will defend this man to your death. Nearly as hilarious as your desperate search for hypocrisy. This is from a "senior administration official" so, I'm assuming they aren't wrong on Obama's stance. I haven't heard anyone getting fired for misquoting the President. Uh, yuh. Interesting. So, you are claiming the officals were wrong? The quote from your article was plural, meaning there was more than one administration official claiming Obama believes he has the power to bomb away with out Congress's approval. But, I can understand why you want to dodge that point. Cary on. Link to comment
walksalone Posted September 4, 2013 Share Posted September 4, 2013 Obama's seriously stepping on his richard, considering any American involvement in this middle eastern sh*t pinata... What does this country stand to gain by intervening in a fight that we have no business in? If we fire cruise missiles at Syria, the rebels, who everyone is forgetting are a$$holes (you can thank the media for that one) won't change anything in that region of the world. I haven't had a problem with what he's done up to now, but if he gets the U.S. involved in this, Obama is a f*ckin' moron... Link to comment
walksalone Posted September 4, 2013 Share Posted September 4, 2013 The first sentence of the quote, thats just funny... "We love the American people, we have millions of Americans of Arab origin including Syrians and we do not want wars with the United States" http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324202304579053110051555776.html?ru=yahoo?mod=yahoo_itp Link to comment
BigRedBuster Posted September 4, 2013 Author Share Posted September 4, 2013 The first sentence of the quote, thats just funny... "We love the American people, we have millions of Americans of Arab origin including Syrians and we do not want wars with the United States" http://online.wsj.co...o?mod=yahoo_itp OH...isn't that precious. Now they love us. That give me such a warm and fuzzy feeling. Link to comment
Junior Posted September 4, 2013 Share Posted September 4, 2013 http://www.usatoday....earing/2761445/ Shortly afterward, McCain came clean in a sarcastic tweet posted on his Twitter account that began with the word, "Scandal! McCain wrote that he'd been caught playing on his phone during a hearing that, he quickly pointed out, exceeded three hours. The senator added, "Worst of all, I lost!" I mean, how can we expect our Senators to pay attention for THREE WHOLE HOURS during a hearing in which we are talking about bombing another country? How ludicrous of us. 2 Link to comment
Recommended Posts