Uncle Joe has been something to really laugh at during the Obama Depression Years.
Delaware should be proud of him. They gave us a few laughs.

(09-29-2014 04:57 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  Ill always remember Packwood as the guy the feminist ran out of office because "the allegation of sexual harassment was a serious enough event"... This was about 3 or 4 years before Clinton got a pass for the blue dress.

Senator Robert Packwood (R., Oregon) was a world-class creep and I was frankly glad to see him driven out of office. But it was also fascinating to compare the feminist/liberal reaction to the Packwood scandals with their reaction to the Clinton scandals.

(09-29-2014 04:48 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Ummm...we haven't gone to war with Iran. Also, this latest action likely falls under the vote they took when Bush was in office after 9/11. They (the do-nothing congress) have yet to vote to remove that authorization.

I can't imagine how much fun defending crazy Joe is.

(09-29-2014 05:31 PM)EagleRockCafe Wrote:  

(09-29-2014 04:48 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Ummm...we haven't gone to war with Iran. Also, this latest action likely falls under the vote they took when Bush was in office after 9/11. They (the do-nothing congress) have yet to vote to remove that authorization.

I can't imagine how much fun defending crazy Joe is.

I can't either...because I'm not. Not my fault that you can't logically comprehend the nuances of this bombing campaign compared to a hypothetical invasion of Iran.

(09-29-2014 05:12 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(09-29-2014 05:06 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(09-29-2014 05:02 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(09-29-2014 04:48 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Ummm...we haven't gone to war with Iran. Also, this latest action likely falls under the vote they took when Bush was in office after 9/11. They (the do-nothing congress) have yet to vote to remove that authorization.

Uhhhh, is entering Iran significantly different to going to war with Syria in your view?

Yes...it is in anyone's view who has half a brain, with what we're actually doing there. We didn't go to war with Syria, we're going after to ISIS who is in Syria. If you recall, Obama ran that (bombing Syria) by congress and they chose not to even vote on it.

So the leader from behinder didn't say overthrowing Assad is a goal as well? How do you propose he do that without also going after his forces, and him? Maybe he'll bow and ask politely! lol

What in the hell are you talking about?

(09-30-2014 09:11 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(09-29-2014 05:12 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(09-29-2014 05:06 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(09-29-2014 05:02 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(09-29-2014 04:48 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Ummm...we haven't gone to war with Iran. Also, this latest action likely falls under the vote they took when Bush was in office after 9/11. They (the do-nothing congress) have yet to vote to remove that authorization.

Uhhhh, is entering Iran significantly different to going to war with Syria in your view?

Yes...it is in anyone's view who has half a brain, with what we're actually doing there. We didn't go to war with Syria, we're going after to ISIS who is in Syria. If you recall, Obama ran that (bombing Syria) by congress and they chose not to even vote on it.

So the leader from behinder didn't say overthrowing Assad is a goal as well? How do you propose he do that without also going after his forces, and him? Maybe he'll bow and ask politely! lol

What in the hell are you talking about?

So you didn't know he also said getting rid of Assad is part of the "mission"? Hunh. Wonder why not?

(09-30-2014 01:52 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(09-30-2014 09:11 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(09-29-2014 05:12 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(09-29-2014 05:06 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(09-29-2014 05:02 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  Uhhhh, is entering Iran significantly different to going to war with Syria in your view?

Yes...it is in anyone's view who has half a brain, with what we're actually doing there. We didn't go to war with Syria, we're going after to ISIS who is in Syria. If you recall, Obama ran that (bombing Syria) by congress and they chose not to even vote on it.

So the leader from behinder didn't say overthrowing Assad is a goal as well? How do you propose he do that without also going after his forces, and him? Maybe he'll bow and ask politely! lol

What in the hell are you talking about?

So you didn't know he also said getting rid of Assad is part of the "mission"? Hunh. Wonder why not?

Cite please? Thanks!

(09-30-2014 01:55 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(09-30-2014 01:52 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(09-30-2014 09:11 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(09-29-2014 05:12 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(09-29-2014 05:06 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Yes...it is in anyone's view who has half a brain, with what we're actually doing there. We didn't go to war with Syria, we're going after to ISIS who is in Syria. If you recall, Obama ran that (bombing Syria) by congress and they chose not to even vote on it.

So the leader from behinder didn't say overthrowing Assad is a goal as well? How do you propose he do that without also going after his forces, and him? Maybe he'll bow and ask politely! lol

What in the hell are you talking about?

So you didn't know he also said getting rid of Assad is part of the "mission"? Hunh. Wonder why not?

Cite please? Thanks!

pretty sure it was 60 minutes at some point. Can't cite, gotta roll out for a spell (this work schit...ghrrrr ((wait, can I say schit anymore?))), funny you wouldn't have heard.

Wonder why the "respected BIG 3" didn't cover that much, hunh? Curious.

but, sounds like war to me!

(09-30-2014 09:10 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  I can't either...because I'm not. Not my fault that you can't logically comprehend the nuances of this bombing campaign compared to a hypothetical invasion of Iran.

Serious question... You don't think any bombing of Iran wouldn't carry its own nuanced rationale?

Biden's statements were long after 9/11 and if you'll recall the tone at the time, the left was calling this an 'illegal' war... so it seems pretty clear that Biden was playing into that... so your defense of the Syria attack on essentially the same grounds (I'm sure that Bush similarly 'ran it by' members of Congress, as Iraq had violated the terms of the cease fire) is inconsistent... and Congress is actually being consistent here.

Biden is the one being inconsistent. Obama is doing essentially what Bush did (he had his own nuances) and Congress is doing now what they did then.

(09-30-2014 01:58 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(09-30-2014 01:55 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(09-30-2014 01:52 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(09-30-2014 09:11 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(09-29-2014 05:12 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  So the leader from behinder didn't say overthrowing Assad is a goal as well? How do you propose he do that without also going after his forces, and him? Maybe he'll bow and ask politely! lol

What in the hell are you talking about?

So you didn't know he also said getting rid of Assad is part of the "mission"? Hunh. Wonder why not?

Cite please? Thanks!

pretty sure it was 60 minutes at some point. Can't cite, gotta roll out for a spell (this work schit...ghrrrr ((wait, can I say schit anymore?))), funny you wouldn't have heard.

Wonder why the "respected BIG 3" didn't cover that much, hunh? Curious.

but, sounds like war to me!

I might have, but just can't remember. Either way, it's imperative to have the cite and source in context before we attempt to debate it.

(09-30-2014 02:11 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(09-30-2014 09:10 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  I can't either...because I'm not. Not my fault that you can't logically comprehend the nuances of this bombing campaign compared to a hypothetical invasion of Iran.

Serious question... You don't think any bombing of Iran wouldn't carry its own nuanced rationale?

Biden's statements were long after 9/11 and if you'll recall the tone at the time, the left was calling this an 'illegal' war... so it seems pretty clear that Biden was playing into that... so your defense of the Syria attack on essentially the same grounds (I'm sure that Bush similarly 'ran it by' members of Congress, as Iraq had violated the terms of the cease fire) is inconsistent... and Congress is actually being consistent here.

Biden is the one being inconsistent. Obama is doing essentially what Bush did (he had his own nuances) and Congress is doing now what they did then.

Again, I can't begin to answer those questions until I know what specifically you're referring to and when it was said. Thanks.

(09-30-2014 03:18 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(09-30-2014 02:11 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(09-30-2014 09:10 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  I can't either...because I'm not. Not my fault that you can't logically comprehend the nuances of this bombing campaign compared to a hypothetical invasion of Iran.

Serious question... You don't think any bombing of Iran wouldn't carry its own nuanced rationale?

Biden's statements were long after 9/11 and if you'll recall the tone at the time, the left was calling this an 'illegal' war... so it seems pretty clear that Biden was playing into that... so your defense of the Syria attack on essentially the same grounds (I'm sure that Bush similarly 'ran it by' members of Congress, as Iraq had violated the terms of the cease fire) is inconsistent... and Congress is actually being consistent here.

Biden is the one being inconsistent. Obama is doing essentially what Bush did (he had his own nuances) and Congress is doing now what they did then.

Again, I can't begin to answer those questions until I know what specifically you're referring to and when it was said. Thanks.

This seems like complete deflection, unless I'm missing something, and if I am, please be kind enough to tell me what it is I'm missing. At the very least, you're replying to someone else other than me.

Best I can tell the Biden comment is linked. The poster says it was 2007 which is long after 9/11/01. I can't cite with certainty that this is specifically Biden making that comment as I don't have voice-print ID, but you didn't claim he didn't say it... you claimed that Syria falls under the same law that obviously arguably justified Bush's actions in Iraq... now we will ignore for a moment that those are two different countries, but since you said it, if it is okay for Obama, it must have been okay for Bush. Of course, you haven't linked YOUR source for this claim, but I'm trying to listen to your point of view rather than debate the pedantic.

Biden is clearly talking about having a problem with military action without congressional approval. If you disagree that this is what he is talking about, please justify that statement in light of the linked speech.

Biden doesn't make any exceptions for nuances... he clearly IMPLIES that taking military action without Congressional approval is a problem for him, and a President even from his own party.

OF COURSE this event is different from Iraq, as was Iraq 2 from Iraq 1 and every other military action before and since... but I don't hear Biden allowing for exceptions to his rule, do you?

I think this is pretty common in politicians... You make some bold, popular 'tough guy' stance to get elected (or to get your guy elected) and then when faced with essentially the same situation you talked so tough about, you merely say 'this is different'.

If you need a link, here is wiki

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Popular_opi...on_of_Iraq

May 2003, 79% believe the war against Iraq is justified... In 2007, about the same time as Biden is supposedly making these statements, the public is 61% against Iraq.


It seems to me that Biden was playing into the popular meme at the time, and now that he's part of the same sort of decision... suddenly it's 'different'??


FTR, I don't remember if it was you or someone else who complained about the length of my posts... but to whomever it was, REAL answers and debates like this sometimes take more words

Quote:When the bombing began in August, Mr. Obama’s letters to Congress cited his constitutional powers as commander in chief. On Wednesday, Mr. Obama said he already had legal authority for the campaign, but would welcome specific congressional approval, too, and administration officials for the first time cited the 2001 authorization to use military force against those responsible for the 9/11 attacks for the campaign.

By claiming statutory authority, the administration sidestepped the War Powers Resolution, which requires deployments into hostilities to end after 60 days if Congress has not signed off. But public and background briefings for reporters this week mentioned only the 9/11 Authorization for the Use of Military Force, or A.U.M.F., and not the Iraq authorization, as did a statement the White House released after Mr. Obama’s speech.

Obama Sees Iraq Resolution as a Legal Basis for Airstrikes, Official Says

This administration sees the original resolution as still valid. And until congress nixes it, from what I've read, it still is valid. Now, whether that provides legal basis for the Syria air strikes of ISIL/ISIS is open for debate. Therefore, Biden would certainly be likely to be of the same mindset as Obama, so his earlier words on Iran don't really apply here. That's all I was really saying.

Clearly, any bombing of Iran would in no way fall under this resolution as the situation currently stands. That could change I suppose if ISIS/ISIL or AQ or that other group takes hold in Iran, but that's a ways off if it ever gets to that point.

As far as the Biden quote, I was referring to JMU's claim about toppling Assad as part of the mission, which I assume is this mission. I wanted a cite for that as I've never heard about that before. I didn't watch that posted video as I figured this would be later than 2007 since it was about this mission. We weren't really doing anything with Assad and Syria in 2007 IIRC.

(09-30-2014 04:22 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  This administration sees the original resolution as still valid. And until congress nixes it, from what I've read, it still is valid. Now, whether that provides legal basis for the Syria air strikes of ISIL/ISIS is open for debate. Therefore, Biden would certainly be likely to be of the same mindset as Obama, so his earlier words on Iran don't really apply here. That's all I was really saying.

Clearly, any bombing of Iran would in no way fall under this resolution as the situation currently stands. That could change I suppose if ISIS/ISIL or AQ or that other group takes hold in Iran, but that's a ways off if it ever gets to that point.

As far as the Biden quote, I was referring to JMU's claim about toppling Assad as part of the mission, which I assume is this mission. I wanted a cite for that as I've never heard about that before. I didn't watch that posted video as I figured this would be later than 2007 since it was about this mission. We weren't really doing anything with Assad and Syria in 2007 IIRC.

Editing to shorten


1) My comments had nothing to do with this until you asked me for a cite... so I'm struggling to think of what you are asking me to cite... as it seems you aren't asking me to cite anything, I'm still waiting on a response.

2) Biden certainly didn't seem to agree with this in 2007... unless you're saying that while you CAN envision Syria becoming a radical Islamic state, you couldn't possibly imagine that happening in Iran...

I think much of what Obama said to get elected wasn't that different from the meme that Biden was espousing at the time... I find it funny that a President who essentially was awarded a Nobel Peace prize for his criticism (specifically) of Bush going into Iraq (because it wasn't part of the 9/11 attack) is now using that same event that he criticized and was lauded for to justify his own incursions.

I don't disagree that Syria is justified based on the same general premise... I simply disagree that Biden OR Obama would have agreed with this in 2008. That is the hypocrisy. If the Bush administration (or the Obama administration that Biden said he would fight) went into Iran, do you doubt that just like they are claiming that Iraq gave them cover for Syria without Congress, that they would argue that something gave them cover to invade Iran?

I find it odd that unlike Biden, you remain open about what COULD happen in the future, implying that Biden was responding 'based on what we knew at the time', when Biden was CLEARLY talking about what could happen in the future to a hypothetical president in a hypothetical invasion of Iran.

HB, I was asking JMU for the cite, not you. He said Biden said something about getting Assad.

(09-30-2014 04:56 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  HB, I was asking JMU for the cite, not you. He said Biden said something about getting Assad.

Ok, so I should ignore post 31? My questions had nothing to do with Assad or even really Syria, other than I suspect all such decisions have their own 'uniqueness'. One doesn't need to know how Syria was unique to know that whatever made it unique, Iran COULD be just as unique.

(09-30-2014 04:56 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  HB, I was asking JMU for the cite, not you. He said Biden said something about getting Assad.

Well no, I said zerO said something about getting Assad. As in does that not constitute an act of war? It sure as heck has in the past- see WWI.

Here's a quick find I got and I HAVE NO IDEA of what this site is. BUT, just a day or two ago I found it mentioned in a number of places, the same exact statement and now I can't seem to find it much of anywhere. VERY odd. No time to watch the 60 Min's interview myself right now. I may do that later or tomorrow to see it myself.

Quote:On 60 Minutes, President Obama flatly stated the US plan for Syria leaves no room for President Assad, the democratically-elected leader of the country. As Obama backs away from his “no boots on the ground” promise, he drops a bomb on the American people as big as any that have hit Syria.
“We are not going to stabilize Syria under the rule of Assad.”

Bolded the money quote.

Source: (?) http://www.dcclothesline.com/2014/09/30/...row-assad/

but again, saw it elsewhere several times prior. What does no room for Assad mean to you?

Run, Joe. Run!

I'm trying to wrap my head around how Obama thinks that a resolution from 2002 against a different organization in a war he has stated many, many, many times is still valid.

(09-30-2014 07:08 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  I'm trying to wrap my head around how Obama thinks that a resolution from 2002 against a different organization in a war he has stated many, many, many times is still valid.

Because it was a crappy resolution...and congress has yet to revoke it.