Home Politics

Of course they don't want to......for different reasons.

bswivbswiv Posts: 7,879 Admiral
So neither Team wants to vote on it so they agree that it is not necessary to vote on it. Case closed.

Now again tell me what there is to chose between either when we are discussing a adherence to the fundamental law of the land?

They have BOTH let us know where they stand.

And just in case you don't realize this: The issue is not the stopping of a bunch of what appear to be really bad actors. That is most probably a good decision on some level. But if we abandon process and if we act based on ends rather than making sure that the means attendant to the ends are suitable, which is what a society functioning under The Rule Of Law does, then we are ultimately in trouble. And we're in trouble because one day in the not to distant future we may find whatever we cherish and believe in is inconvenient to both teams.....and our protection from a collusion of power in that situation?

That's right. It will not exist. And it will not simply because ALL of us at one time or another acquiesced to the notion that so long as the ends pushed by the leaders of our Team were being attained the how was not so important.


Well, that didn't take long. Speaker of the House John Boehner (R-Ohio) has signaled that it may be inevitable that American troops will be fighting the Islamic State (ISIS) in Syria and Iraq. From an ABC News interview with George Stephanopoulos yesterday:

"If I were the president, [said Boehner,] "I probably wouldn’t have talked about what I wouldn’t do — and maybe we can get enough of those forces trained to get them on the battlefield, but somebody’s boots have to be there."

"If no one else will step up, would you recommend putting American boots on the ground?" Stephanopoulos pressed.

"We have no choice," Boehner warned. "These are barbarians. They intend to kill us, and if we don’t destroy them first, we’re going to pay the price."

Needless to say, Boehner is also quite happy not to actually demand that Congress actually vote on current actions in the region, saying that he agrees with Obama that previous authorizations to use military force cover everything OK. Yet he'd "be happy to" call Congress back into session for a vote if the president requested it.

While we puzzle over the twin awfulness of Boehner's position, let's not forget the serious threat inflation at work here. To pretend that ISIS is an existential threat to the United States, or that it has the capacity to actually do harm to us in any serious way is simply wrong. ISIS is a problem for Iraq and Syria and its geographic neighbors—it isn't for us.

And that this latest round of action in the Middle East is starting off under a cloud of stupid. President Obama acknowledged to 60 Minutes that U.S. intelligience had both overestimated the resolve and capabilities of Iraqi troops while underestimating the abilities of ISIS.

Which would be troubling enough but gets even murkier when you consider Eli Lake's must-read story at The Daily Beast. It's simply not true, reports Lake:

One former senior Pentagon official who worked closely on the threat posed by Sunni jihadists in Syria and Iraq was flabbergasted. "Either the president doesn’t read the intelligence he’s getting or he’s bull****ting," the former official said.

So we've got a president who is either incompetent or lying and a speaker whose party is calling out the president for weakness when it comes to war-making and is willing to put U.S. troops on the ground as long as they don't have to, you know, vote on it.

This is not going to turn out well.
http://reason.com/blog/2014/09/29/either-the-president-doesnt-read-the-int
«1

Replies

  • phlatsphilphlatsphil Posts: 14,632 AG
    By congress NOT voting to approve our involvement in defeating ISIS, congress is putting this entirely on Obama's shoulders. IF we fail, congress can wash their hands of the whole mess. They can then impeach or sue or do whatever they want to Obama, citing Obama's policy as not approved by congress. IF we win, congress can say "hey, we were all for it, we would have approved it if only Obama would asked".
  • David BDavid B Posts: 1,907 Captain
    Would I be naïve to think that we won't see some sort of attack on US soil again? There are many out there that truly believe that it will not happen here again.
    Increasing MMGW or climate change, one twist off at a time.
  • cprcpr Posts: 9,309 Admiral
    Congress sucks but after 6 years of abysmal leadership from Obama you can't expect congress to back the clueless fool.
    "The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in the mind at the same time, and still retain the ability to function." F. Scott Fitzgerald

    "Prediction is very difficult, especially if it's about the future." Niels Bohr
  • ScminnowScminnow Posts: 4,094 Captain
    Remember when chimpy mcbushhilter went to congress for authorization and the majority of the left voted for it? Fun days
  • Mister-JrMister-Jr Posts: 27,752 AG
    David B wrote: »
    Would I be naïve to think that we won't see some sort of attack on US soil again? There are many out there that truly believe that it will not happen here again.

    This past weekend I was at the site of the 9/11 attacks. It has changed my mind on what and how I thought we needed to protect this country from any and all attacks. I am now balls to the wall for action against threats made against this country.
    Vote for the other candidate
  • ScminnowScminnow Posts: 4,094 Captain
    Why doesn't the Iman Obama ask congress for the vote? It's everyone else's fault but the Iman lol
  • SWFL_F1sh0nSWFL_F1sh0n Posts: 17,248 Officer
    Scminnow wrote: »
    Why doesn't the Iman Obama ask congress for the vote? It's everyone else's fault but the Iman lol

    http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/09/11/us-iraq-crisis-congress-idUSKBN0H528X20140911

    Obama asks Congress to approve aid to rebels in fight against Islamic State
  • SWFL_F1sh0nSWFL_F1sh0n Posts: 17,248 Officer
    Scminnow wrote: »
    Remember when chimpy mcbushhilter went to congress for authorization and the majority of the left voted for it? Fun days

    No, don't recall that at all. As a matter of fact I recall a minority of Democrats voting yay.
  • cprcpr Posts: 9,309 Admiral
    http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/09/11/us-iraq-crisis-congress-idUSKBN0H528X20140911

    Obama asks Congress to approve aid to rebels in fight against Islamic State


    He asked and congress gave him what he asked for.


    Congress Gives Final Approval to Aid Rebels in Fight With ISIS
    http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/19/world/middleeast/senate-approves-isis-bill-avoiding-bigger-war-debate.html?_r=0

    Nice try to divert. The issue is US use of force.
    "The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in the mind at the same time, and still retain the ability to function." F. Scott Fitzgerald

    "Prediction is very difficult, especially if it's about the future." Niels Bohr
  • ScminnowScminnow Posts: 4,094 Captain
    I don't respond to socialist but will someone tell the poster above that's not what we're talking about tyvm
  • ScminnowScminnow Posts: 4,094 Captain
  • SWFL_F1sh0nSWFL_F1sh0n Posts: 17,248 Officer
    Scminnow wrote: »
    Remember when chimpy mcbushhilter went to congress for authorization and the majority of the left voted for it? Fun days
    No, don't recall that at all. As a matter of fact I recall a minority of Democrats voting yay.
    Scminnow wrote: »
    I don't respond to socialist but will someone tell the poster above that's not what we're talking about tyvm

    I wouldn't either if I got beat up as much as you do.
  • CatBoxCatBox Posts: 3,709 Captain
    Well, I guess Biden was correct back in 2007. Times sure do change...
  • dstockwelldstockwell Posts: 13,813 AG
    Scminnow wrote: »
    Remember when chimpy mcbushhilter went to congress for authorization and the majority of the left voted for it? Fun days

    Simply not factual

    House
    Pubs 215 Y / 6 N
    Dems 82 Y / 126 N

    Senate
    Pubs 48 Y / 1 N
    Dems 29 Y / 21 N

    Total
    Pubs 263 Y / 7 N
    Dems 111 Y / 147 N
    It is not the responsibility of the United States to solve the problems of other countries.
  • dragon baitdragon bait Posts: 9,127 Admiral
    Faux, it only takes once if it's done right. ;-) I would agree that no terrorist group would be a threat if our border were secure and our immigration laws were enforced as written , that in and of itself would diminish the odds of an attack by 90 %.
    How would secure borders prevented 9-11?
    A little about the terrorist
    14 came to the United States on six-month tourist visas and four came on business visas, according to the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States. Once in the U.S., two of the hijack pilots applied to have their immigration status changed to vocational student, but neither used such a visa on their subsequent re-entry into the country.
    http://www.factcheck.org/2013/05/911-hijackers-and-student-visas/
  • Conchy CrackerConchy Cracker Posts: 10,454 Officer
    cpr wrote: »
    Congress sucks but after 6 years of abysmal leadership from Obama you can't expect congress to back the clueless fool.

    If only they would have a 55th vote to repeal Obamacare... then everything would be right as rain....
  • chubascochubasco Posts: 18,390 Officer
    Scminnow wrote: »
    Remember when chimpy mcbushhilter went to congress for authorization and the majority of the left voted for it? Fun days
    No, don't recall that at all. As a matter of fact I recall a minority of Democrats voting yay.
    dstockwell wrote: »
    Simply not factual

    House
    Pubs 215 Y / 6 N
    Dems 82 Y / 126 N

    Senate
    Pubs 48 Y / 1 N
    Dems 29 Y / 21 N

    Total
    Pubs 263 Y / 7 N

    Dems 111 Y / 147 N



    Please, if the repubs had to start using real facts here they would have nothing. Let them continue to revel in their delusions. At least there will not be another repub president in our lifetimes thanks to W.
    Chubasco.jpg
  • phlatsphilphlatsphil Posts: 14,632 AG
    David B wrote: »
    Would I be naïve to think that we won't see some sort of attack on US soil again? There are many out there that truly believe that it will not happen here again.

    Yes, one would be naive to think we won't see another MAJOR attack on US soil. These things take time to plan. And they gots lots of time. My prediction is, another MAJOR attack won't happen until we're into the next administration.... again, only because it takes years of planning. They're here now, they're carefully planning, and they know they can't use cell phones willy nilly to make their plans.

    Oh, here's something you can take to the bank... they won't phone in a bomb threat. Bomb threats are high school gags. Real terrorists don't threaten, they just do it. Nike would be so proud.
  • cadmancadman Home of the Gators Posts: 32,680 AG
    Scminnow wrote: »
    Why doesn't the Iman Obama ask congress for the vote? It's everyone else's fault but the Iman lol

    Same reason the Republicans don't want him to ask. It will not be good for the midterm elections to have congress vote on this. The Democrats and Republicans both are afraid it could hurt their re-election attempts. If it would just hurt the Republicans, Obama woudl have already called for the vote.

    It is going to happen if need be. Congress has approved the funding knowing what could happen if need be. They just don't want to vote to put American soldiers in harms way with an election in a few months.

    Mini Mart Magnate

    I am just here for my amusement. 

  • cadmancadman Home of the Gators Posts: 32,680 AG
    phlatsphil wrote: »
    Yes, one would be naive to think we won't see another MAJOR attack on US soil. These things take time to plan. And they gots lots of time. My prediction is, another MAJOR attack won't happen until we're into the next administration.... again, only because it takes years of planning. They're here now, they're carefully planning, and they know they can't use cell phones willy nilly to make their plans.

    Oh, here's something you can take to the bank... they won't phone in a bomb threat. Bomb threats are high school gags. Real terrorists don't threaten, they just do it. Nike would be so proud.

    I don't think you will see one this decade. If we see another, and I think we will at some point, I am afraid it may be a small nuclear device or chemical weapon of some kind.

    Mini Mart Magnate

    I am just here for my amusement. 

  • NewberryJeffNewberryJeff Posts: 7,447 Admiral
    Once Obama sends them pontoons, they can bring his Toyota Jihad to America. Think of all the tax money our leaders can get laundered into private hands.

    1412038776811_zps354dbdd0.jpg
  • dragon baitdragon bait Posts: 9,127 Admiral
    You ought to re-read my post but considering that comprehension may not be your strong suit......pay particular attention to " and [if] our immigration laws were enforced as written ". How many were still here on expired visas, ect.. ?
    There were 19 hijackers and as far as I can find 3 or 4 overstayed, If we had the capability to round them up when they over stayed it would still have left enough to get the job done.

    http://www.fairus.org/issue/identity-and-immigration-status-of-9-11-terrorists
  • NewberryJeffNewberryJeff Posts: 7,447 Admiral
    For nearly three months this summer, the Obama administration carefully avoided answering questions about what happened to tens of thousands of immigrant families caught illegally crossing the Mexican border and released into the United States with instructions to report back to immigration authorities.

    The Homeland Security Department privately acknowledged that about 70 percent of immigrant families failed to report as ordered. The disclosure came during a confidential meeting at its Washington headquarters with immigration advocates participating in a federal working group on detention and enforcement policies.

    http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_IMMIGRATION_OVERLOAD?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT
  • phlatsphilphlatsphil Posts: 14,632 AG
    For nearly three months this summer, the Obama administration carefully avoided answering questions about what happened to tens of thousands of immigrant families caught illegally crossing the Mexican border and released into the United States with instructions to report back to immigration authorities.

    The Homeland Security Department privately acknowledged that about 70 percent of immigrant families failed to report as ordered. The disclosure came during a confidential meeting at its Washington headquarters with immigration advocates participating in a federal working group on detention and enforcement policies.

    http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_IMMIGRATION_OVERLOAD?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

    What is the likelihood that a Catholic Hispanic immigrant family member will commit an act of terrorism in this country? My guess is zip poop nuttin.
  • Grady-ladyGrady-lady east of the river, west of the woodsPosts: 5,282 Admiral
    Scminnow wrote: »
    Remember when chimpy mcbushhilter went to congress for authorization and the majority of the left voted for it? Fun days
    No, don't recall that at all. As a matter of fact I recall a minority of Democrats voting yay.
    dstockwell wrote: »
    Simply not factual

    House
    Pubs 215 Y / 6 N
    Dems 82 Y / 126 N

    Senate
    Pubs 48 Y / 1 N
    Dems 29 Y / 21 N

    Total
    Pubs 263 Y / 7 N
    Dems 111 Y / 147 N

    Speaking of factual -

    WASHINGTON — The Obama administration said Wednesday that it needed no new approval from Congress to launch an open-ended air war in both Syria and Iraq against the group known as ISIS because the campaign is covered by the existing authorization to use military force against the perpetrators of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks — that is, Al Qaeda.

    Until now, the administration had cited only the president’s constitutional powers as commander in chief as the basis for recent airstrikes against the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria. But its new rationale raised questions about the factual basis behind its assertion that the 2001 authorization to use military force, known as the A.U.M.F., covers ISIS.
    http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/11/world/middleeast/white-house-invites-congress-to-approve-isis-strikes-but-says-it-isnt-necessary.html?_r=1

    ...and the vote on the 2001 AUMF was?....just to keep it factual.
    I find my peace out on the sand...Beside the sea, not beyond or behind. R.A. Britt

  • Grady-ladyGrady-lady east of the river, west of the woodsPosts: 5,282 Admiral
    phlatsphil wrote: »
    What is the likelihood that a Catholic Hispanic immigrant family member will commit an act of terrorism in this country? My guess is zip poop nuttin.

    Uh, of the tens of thousands who have disappeared, you are certain that all are 'Catholic Hispanic'? You know this how?...from the passports they show at the border to clear customs? It only took 19 to take out 3000+.

    Which of the following are Catholic Hispanic?



    Would you bet your family's life on it?
    I find my peace out on the sand...Beside the sea, not beyond or behind. R.A. Britt

  • dstockwelldstockwell Posts: 13,813 AG
    Regardless of what they say, nothing in the constitution authorizes this continued BS. Unless of course Congress is going to declare war on a country and not an ideology.
    It is not the responsibility of the United States to solve the problems of other countries.
  • Grady-ladyGrady-lady east of the river, west of the woodsPosts: 5,282 Admiral
    bswiv wrote: »
    And just in case you don't realize this: The issue is not the stopping of a bunch of what appear to be really bad actors. That is most probably a good decision on some level. But if we abandon process and if we act based on ends rather than making sure that the means attendant to the ends are suitable, which is what a society functioning under The Rule Of Law does, then we are ultimately in trouble. And we're in trouble because one day in the not to distant future we may find whatever we cherish and believe in is inconvenient to both teams.....and our protection from a collusion of power in that situation?


    Text of the AUMF

    Preamble

    Joint Resolution

    To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States.
    Whereas, on September 11, 2001, acts of treacherous violence were committed against the United States and its citizens; andWhereas, such acts render it both necessary and appropriate that the United States exercise its rights to self-defense and to protect United States citizens both at home and abroad; andWhereas, in light of the threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States posed by these grave acts of violence; andWhereas, such acts continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States; andWhereas, the President has authority under the Constitution to take action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States: Now, therefore, be itResolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
    Section 1 - Short Title

    This joint resolution may be cited as the 'Authorization for Use of Military Force'.

    Section 2 - Authorization For Use of United States Armed Forces

    (a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

    (b) War Powers Resolution Requirements-
    (1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS- Nothing in this resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorization_for_Use_of_Military_Force_Against_Terrorists

    I don't know, bswiv. As a Rule of Law argument, this could go either way, even to granting authority for preemptive action to prevent future attacks. Though we might like to see a House and Senate vote, would that actually be following the Rule of Law? This is far more convoluted, the mission murkier than anything I can remember. Arming rebels again, too. Kissinger, Netanyahu and others claim Iran is by far the bigger danger.
    I find my peace out on the sand...Beside the sea, not beyond or behind. R.A. Britt

Sign In or Register to comment.