(09-01-2013 03:14 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  How is this Obama's fault.
The enitre Middle East was destablized because Bush took out Iraq.
Iraq was the lynch pin that was holding Iran in place. Once we took them out, Iran was free to control the entire region.
Osama Bin Laden got exactly what he was hoping for when Bush invaded Iraq.

It's Obama's fault because he was supposed to do something about it. That's his job. So far he has made things worse not better.

Otherwise, your analysis is oversimplified but there's a lot of truth to it.

We haven't had anybody in either party who understands the Middle East. My expat friends over there never cease to be amazed--and appalled--at how stupidly both Shrub and Zero have behaved regarding the area.

(09-01-2013 02:49 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  I love it.

Obama threatens to attack and everyone crys foul and that only Congress should make the decision. Now he lets Congress and the same people are complaining that he is passing the buck.

Some people are never satisfied.

Did it ever occur to you that Obama is wrong far more than he's right? He's just the wrong person to deal with foreign policy.......and the economy, social issues, trade, taxes, etc

I'm just wondering how much of the Syrian Chemical Stockpile is on its way to Terhan by now. They have two weeks to clean the place out.

(08-31-2013 04:18 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Upset that he took away a talking point?

Absolutely nothing wrong with going to Congress to get approval. Your criticism doesn't scream credibility. This is a good thing and will probably expose some deep divisions in the GOP ranks. An ancillary benefit for O for sure. Get over it.

Not sure if these clowns are serious.

(09-01-2013 02:49 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  I love it.

Obama threatens to attack and everyone crys foul and that only Congress should make the decision. Now he lets Congress and the same people are complaining that he is passing the buck.

Some people are never satisfied.

This.

(09-01-2013 04:23 PM)firmbizzle Wrote:  

(09-01-2013 02:49 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  I love it.

Obama threatens to attack and everyone crys foul and that only Congress should make the decision. Now he lets Congress and the same people are complaining that he is passing the buck.

Some people are never satisfied.

This.

To obtain Congressional Authorization Obama will have to outline US Strategy, Goals and End Game in this Operation.

If he wants to end Chemical Attacks on Syrian civilians that goal is pretty much accomplished already as the Syrian stockpile is on its way out of Syria to Iran.

In the meantime any Ballistic Missiles or other possible targets are being relocated.

That's the coalition that the great uniter has put together? These are his guys after all, right? Obama healed the oceans, brought us to energy independence and got the Middle East to love him. And love each other. And love peace on earth, right? Hope and Change?

Why is the whole effing world on fire under this amatuer? Making dope okay is being a leader? C'mon people. This is terrible, from all fronts. The economy sucks, housing starts suck, zerOcare sucks, UE 6 sucks, bad, and that doesn't even touch Chicago, social wreckage, Detroit or anything more. Good grief, what has to happen? Complete collapse?

How many were in the coalition that the ChimpBush had that so many leftists continue to malign? A quarter of the Earths countries or something? Today we have _______ one_______ France.

I guess it's all politics and agenda. We are living witnesses to the crumbling of the greatest, most generous country on earth. Ever. Tis sad.

We who live in a Socialist Obama state want our dope. Will it be free?
Free is good. Will go well with free cheese and free Obamaphones.
How about free money.

(08-31-2013 04:18 PM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  Isn't that what he's supposed to do.

Positive Rep me and I'll vote for Obama in 2016

I think the problem is that he goes above the congress anyways, so what he has now done is said screw it. He's tired of dealing with the people so he gave it over to Congress while he went away for more fun. When he gets back and Congress says no, he'll likely do something anyways.

(09-01-2013 02:49 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  I love it.

Obama threatens to attack and everyone crys foul and that only Congress should make the decision. Now he lets Congress and the same people are complaining that he is passing the buck.

Some people are never satisfied.

*complaining that he's off playing golf and having fun.

I guess you would do the same thing instead of focusing on current problems which is why you don't have a problem with it.

If he wants to attack, he should turn it over to congress but he should also be working to get support lined up instead of taking off. I don't think he sees the need to do that because I think he has already made the decision to attack no matter what congress says. Of course, I prefer that he not get the support lined up, so I'm fine with his playing golf. He can hurt us less on the golf course than elsewhere.

(08-31-2013 05:03 PM)THE NC Herd Fan Wrote:  In recent history I can't think of a time congress has not authorized the request to use force by a POTUS. Two BIG questions:

1) If congress does NOT authorize use of force what will Obama do?

Scary part was that a Democratic senator (reportedly) said that Obama has authority to take "limited" action without Congressional approval. I truly hope he doesnt' try that.

Quote:2) If Obama is handed an embarrassing defeat by congress will he officially become a LAME DUCK with 3+ years left in office?

I don't think it'd be an embarrassing defeat, since he's doing what he's supposed to (get Congressional approval). IF he did something even without approval, THEN i think he's in political trouble, since so few of the American public thinks we should be involved in that cluster....

The War Powers Act Is Pretty Unclear About Whether Congress Gets a Vote On Syria

Experts all over the map on whether Congress deserves a vote or not on military strikes in Syria.

Am I the only one that thinks this is just a show for Obamas ego? He realizes he shouldn't have made the red line comment and regrets it, but how can he get out of it? He decides to give the issue to congress, which is a rarity these days because he knows they will vote it down. Then he can still come out and say he is angry with Syria, but he respects the congress' decision. Therefore he can use this against all the people who say he ignores the constitution all while appearing like a tough guy that was held back from doing what he really wanted. This is all a show.

Why is this bad? I was pissed when he bombed Libya without congress at least this time he asked..

(09-02-2013 11:28 AM)ETSUfan1 Wrote:  Am I the only one that thinks this is just a show for Obamas ego? He realizes he shouldn't have made the red line comment and regrets it, but how can he get out of it? He decides to give the issue to congress, which is a rarity these days because he knows they will vote it down. Then he can still come out and say he is angry with Syria, but he respects the congress' decision. Therefore he can use this against all the people who say he ignores the constitution all while appearing like a tough guy that was held back from doing what he really wanted. This is all a show.

I don't think its for his ego I think it's Obama covering his rear... Like you say he should not have made that red line comment without first talking to congressional leaders of both parties in both houses.

He was "talking tough" and now he does not want to own the response.

But at least he is asking congress.

The smartest thing Congress can do is pass a resolution confirming that Obama has authority under the War Powers Resolution to do whatever Obama thinks is necessary and appropriate.

This gets around any of the second guessing about Congress' role in this particular conflict. It also puts the ball in Obama's court which is where it should be. It's pretty clear that the War Powers Resolution doesn't apply for the types of limited actions that are being contemplated.

Now if we get to the point of significant boots on the ground, then Congress needs to be involved.

(09-02-2013 12:04 PM)QuestionSocratic Wrote:  The smartest thing Congress can do is pass a resolution confirming that Obama has authority under the War Powers Resolution to do whatever Obama thinks is necessary and appropriate.

This gets around any of the second guessing about Congress' role in this particular conflict. It also puts the ball in Obama's court which is where it should be. It's pretty clear that the War Powers Resolution doesn't apply for the types of limited actions that are being contemplated.

Now if we get to the point of significant boots on the ground, then Congress needs to be involved.

The GOP led House can't vote for anything associated with Obama, regardless of the merits.

(09-02-2013 03:35 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(09-02-2013 12:04 PM)QuestionSocratic Wrote:  The smartest thing Congress can do is pass a resolution confirming that Obama has authority under the War Powers Resolution to do whatever Obama thinks is necessary and appropriate.

This gets around any of the second guessing about Congress' role in this particular conflict. It also puts the ball in Obama's court which is where it should be. It's pretty clear that the War Powers Resolution doesn't apply for the types of limited actions that are being contemplated.

Now if we get to the point of significant boots on the ground, then Congress needs to be involved.

The GOP led House can't vote for anything associated with Obama, regardless of the merits.

Merits?!? What merit is there in attacking a dictator in the midst of a civil war? There is no direct threat to the US regardless of the outcome in Syria. Attacking is little more than trying to shape the outcome of the war.