Military Operations In Syria Have Officially Begun 2100est 22 September

[TemplarKormac]

Operations have begun into Syria.

Thanks for the update Econ.

under what legal authority does the prezbo have

to conduct an offensive war in Syria

The Obama administration pointed to the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force, which gives the president authority to act “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.” The administration has also cited the 2003 AUMF that authorized the president to go to war to “defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq,” then governed by Saddam Hussein.

The White House’s defenders argue that the 2001 AUMF gives Obama the authority he needs to fight ISIS because, while ISIS broke from al-Qaida in 2012, it is nonetheless composed of former al-Qaida members (at least in part), who have (or so it is argued by the administration) continuously conducted and sought to conduct attacks against the United States and its citizens and interests.

In other words, the EXACT same legal authority that Bush used to invade Iraq.

The AUMF was meant to combat al-Qaeda. Not ISIS. When they split from al-Qaeda, they were no longer affiliated with them. Note how they disowned them for being even more extreme in their ways than they were. Shouldn't that tell you something?

 

[Old Rocks]

I sincerely hope that President Putin steps in and doesn't let obama get away with this unlawful invasion.

So, our treasonous little bitch once again proves where her sympathies lie.

 

[Old Rocks]

Climate change is our fault don't you know......[/QUOTE]

Why yes, that is a fact. However, that does not change the fact that the post concerns our reaction to the danger to all that ISIS poses. A short term danger that can be reduced to rubble and corpses as an object lesson to all barbarians.

Climate change, on the other hand, is an ongoing danger we will have with us for centuries from just the GHGs that we have already put into the atmosphere. And that is not just my opinion, but the opinion of all the Scientfic Societies, all the National Academies of Science, and all the major Universities in the world.

 

[jon_berzerk]

Operations have begun into Syria.

Thanks for the update Econ.

under what legal authority does the prezbo have

to conduct an offensive war in Syria

The Obama administration pointed to the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force, which gives the president authority to act “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.” The administration has also cited the 2003 AUMF that authorized the president to go to war to “defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq,” then governed by Saddam Hussein.

The White House’s defenders argue that the 2001 AUMF gives Obama the authority he needs to fight ISIS because, while ISIS broke from al-Qaida in 2012, it is nonetheless composed of former al-Qaida members (at least in part), who have (or so it is argued by the administration) continuously conducted and sought to conduct attacks against the United States and its citizens and interests.

In other words, the EXACT same legal authority that Bush used to invade Iraq.

The AUMF was meant to combat al-Qaeda. Not ISIS. When they split from al-Qaeda, they were no longer affiliated with them. Note how they disowned them for being even more extreme in their ways than they were. Shouldn't that tell you something?

it is a complete mess

the khorasan group is really al qeada the same al qeada that the prezbo defeated

some time ago

however that being said the 2001 AUMF was not the one to invade Iraq

 

[TooTall]

Operations have begun into Syria.

Thanks for the update Econ.

under what legal authority does the prezbo have

to conduct an offensive war in Syria

The Obama administration pointed to the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force, which gives the president authority to act “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.” The administration has also cited the 2003 AUMF that authorized the president to go to war to “defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq,” then governed by Saddam Hussein.

The White House’s defenders argue that the 2001 AUMF gives Obama the authority he needs to fight ISIS because, while ISIS broke from al-Qaida in 2012, it is nonetheless composed of former al-Qaida members (at least in part), who have (or so it is argued by the administration) continuously conducted and sought to conduct attacks against the United States and its citizens and interests.

In other words, the EXACT same legal authority that Bush used to invade Iraq.

The AUMF was meant to combat al-Qaeda. Not ISIS. When they split from al-Qaeda, they were no longer affiliated with them. Note how they disowned them for being even more extreme in their ways than they were. Shouldn't that tell you something?

it is a complete mess

the khorasan group is really al qeada the same al qeada that the prezbo defeated

some time ago

however that being said the 2001 AUMF was not the one to invade Iraq

You are correct. It is the 2003 AUMF that was used to invade Iraq that I was referring to. This was in one of the two paragraphs that I quoted:

The administration has also cited the 2003 AUMF that authorized the president to go to war to “defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq,” then governed by Saddam Hussein.

Here is a bit of the "2003 AUMF." that was actually passed by Congress in late 2002.

Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002, Pub.L. 107–243, 116 Stat.1498, enacted October 16, 2002,H.J.Res. 114) is a joint resolution passed by the United States Congressi n October 2002 as Public Law No: 107-243, authorizing military action against Iraq. The Iraq Resolution or the Iraq War Resolution (formally the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq.)


The resolution authorized President Bush to use the Armed Forces of the United States"as he determines to be necessary and appropriate" in order to "defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq."

 

[paulitician]

After this War is over, what new War will the Ruling-Class Globalist Elites get us into next? Americans really do need reconsider supporting endless Intervention/War. What's in it for them? Absolutely nothing. The average Citizen doesn't benefit one bit from all these Wars. In fact, they're forced to pay for em all. Only the Ruling-Class Elites benefit from endless War. It's time for a new direction.

 

[EconChick]

I sincerely hope that President Putin steps in and doesn't let obama get away with this unlawful invasion.

FUCK YOU! You're not only an asshole, you're a seditious POS.

Really, so is this what you said about Bush when he started the war in Iraq? I have a sneaking suspicion that you wanted someone to stop Bush from starting his war too. It's funny how you Democrats still hang on Obama's...ahem...coattails praising every move he makes, including going to war--AFTER railing on his predecessor. Your hypocrisy knows absolutely no bounds whatsoever.

Oh BULLSHIT. Clinton had Saddam corraled and used force whenever Saddam attempted to push the limits of the no fly zone.

Our nation had never before invaded a sovergn nation without cause - Saddam was no threat to us; yet the neocons had wanted to invade Iraq and didn't hide their desire to do so: See:

Project for the New American Century - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

And read the Statement of Principles written during the Clinton Administration. All this Mushroom Cloud threat was more bullshit, the leading neocons, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Libby wanted war and any excuse would do.

Obama had no hidden agenda, his agenda was clear from the get go. End foriegn wars, repair our nations image abroad and fix the economy badly broken by greed and a failure to regulate the so called Masters of the Universe.

I don't foresee American boots on the ground, and would not support an air and naval bombardment unless other Arab States had skin in the game. That they do is amazing and President Obama deserves credit for this accomplishment.

You have to stop reading your history off the back of a cereal box, darlin

People steeped in history can run circles around your feeble attempts to rewrite what happened there.





No one takes you seriously.

 

[Wry Catcher]

I sincerely hope that President Putin steps in and doesn't let obama get away with this unlawful invasion.

FUCK YOU! You're not only an asshole, you're a seditious POS.

Really, so is this what you said about Bush when he started the war in Iraq? I have a sneaking suspicion that you wanted someone to stop Bush from starting his war too. It's funny how you Democrats still hang on Obama's...ahem...coattails praising every move he makes, including going to war--AFTER railing on his predecessor. Your hypocrisy knows absolutely no bounds whatsoever.

Oh BULLSHIT. Clinton had Saddam corraled and used force whenever Saddam attempted to push the limits of the no fly zone.

Our nation had never before invaded a sovergn nation without cause - Saddam was no threat to us; yet the neocons had wanted to invade Iraq and didn't hide their desire to do so: See:

Project for the New American Century - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

And read the Statement of Principles written during the Clinton Administration. All this Mushroom Cloud threat was more bullshit, the leading neocons, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Libby wanted war and any excuse would do.

Obama had no hidden agenda, his agenda was clear from the get go. End foriegn wars, repair our nations image abroad and fix the economy badly broken by greed and a failure to regulate the so called Masters of the Universe.

I don't foresee American boots on the ground, and would not support an air and naval bombardment unless other Arab States had skin in the game. That they do is amazing and President Obama deserves credit for this accomplishment.

You have to stop reading your history off the back of a cereal box, darlin

People steeped in history can run circles around your feeble attempts to rewrite what happened there.





No one takes you seriously.

Do you think...err believe...err want others to believe I give a shit about your crazy opinions? Maybe you are that deluded,or maybe you've been brain washed to actually believe I rewrite history? If so, your words are a result of your ignorance, willful (if so dishonest and highly partisan) or congenital.

Others, no doubt, read the link to the PNAC and recognize the names of the NeoCons who signed the Statement of Principles as those who orchestrated the Iraq fiasco and cost our nation terribly.

So, post your version of history, start with the end of the first world war and how the Middle East was divided with the fall of the Ottoman Empire; then work your way up to the end George W. Bush's Administration.

I'd enjoy reading the new and revised version of this period of time, how Obama caused the Great Recession, started wars throughout the ME, ignored the attack on Benghazi and introduced the first five year plan by funding Solandra, his first effort to instill a Left Wing Marxist, Socialist, Fascist, Right Wing Regime iin America.

Doubt that, read some of the posts by other RW nuts and Obama haters, they are your alies.

 

[TemplarKormac]

I sincerely hope that President Putin steps in and doesn't let obama get away with this unlawful invasion.

FUCK YOU! You're not only an asshole, you're a seditious POS.

Really, so is this what you said about Bush when he started the war in Iraq? I have a sneaking suspicion that you wanted someone to stop Bush from starting his war too. It's funny how you Democrats still hang on Obama's...ahem...coattails praising every move he makes, including going to war--AFTER railing on his predecessor. Your hypocrisy knows absolutely no bounds whatsoever.

Oh BULLSHIT. Clinton had Saddam corraled and used force whenever Saddam attempted to push the limits of the no fly zone.

Our nation had never before invaded a sovergn nation without cause - Saddam was no threat to us; yet the neocons had wanted to invade Iraq and didn't hide their desire to do so: See:

Project for the New American Century - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

And read the Statement of Principles written during the Clinton Administration. All this Mushroom Cloud threat was more bullshit, the leading neocons, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Libby wanted war and any excuse would do.

Obama had no hidden agenda, his agenda was clear from the get go. End foriegn wars, repair our nations image abroad and fix the economy badly broken by greed and a failure to regulate the so called Masters of the Universe.

I don't foresee American boots on the ground, and would not support an air and naval bombardment unless other Arab States had skin in the game. That they do is amazing and President Obama deserves credit for this accomplishment.

You have to stop reading your history off the back of a cereal box, darlin

People steeped in history can run circles around your feeble attempts to rewrite what happened there.





No one takes you seriously.

Do you think...err believe...err want others to believe I give a shit about your crazy opinions? Maybe you are that deluded,or maybe you've been brain washed to actually believe I rewrite history? If so, your words are a result of your ignorance, willful (if so dishonest and highly partisan) or congenital.

Others, no doubt, read the link to the PNAC and recognize the names of the NeoCons who signed the Statement of Principles as those who orchestrated the Iraq fiasco and cost our nation terribly.

So, post your version of history, start with the end of the first world war and how the Middle East was divided with the fall of the Ottoman Empire; then work your way up to the end George W. Bush's Administration.

I'd enjoy reading the new and revised version of this period of time, how Obama caused the Great Recession, started wars throughout the ME, ignored the attack on Benghazi and introduced the first five year plan by funding Solandra, his first effort to instill a Left Wing Marxist, Socialist, Fascist, Right Wing Regime iin America.

Doubt that, read some of the posts by other RW nuts and Obama haters, they are your alies.

Well, nobody expects to take you seriously when you are constantly enraged by different opinions. Or when you misspell words like "allies" or "Solyndra." Your post is racked with anger, not one fact among it.

When you blame Bush for everything, you post your own version of history.

 

[Wry Catcher]

FUCK YOU! You're not only an asshole, you're a seditious POS.

Really, so is this what you said about Bush when he started the war in Iraq? I have a sneaking suspicion that you wanted someone to stop Bush from starting his war too. It's funny how you Democrats still hang on Obama's...ahem...coattails praising every move he makes, including going to war--AFTER railing on his predecessor. Your hypocrisy knows absolutely no bounds whatsoever.

Oh BULLSHIT. Clinton had Saddam corraled and used force whenever Saddam attempted to push the limits of the no fly zone.

Our nation had never before invaded a sovergn nation without cause - Saddam was no threat to us; yet the neocons had wanted to invade Iraq and didn't hide their desire to do so: See:

Project for the New American Century - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

And read the Statement of Principles written during the Clinton Administration. All this Mushroom Cloud threat was more bullshit, the leading neocons, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Libby wanted war and any excuse would do.

Obama had no hidden agenda, his agenda was clear from the get go. End foriegn wars, repair our nations image abroad and fix the economy badly broken by greed and a failure to regulate the so called Masters of the Universe.

I don't foresee American boots on the ground, and would not support an air and naval bombardment unless other Arab States had skin in the game. That they do is amazing and President Obama deserves credit for this accomplishment.

You have to stop reading your history off the back of a cereal box, darlin

People steeped in history can run circles around your feeble attempts to rewrite what happened there.





No one takes you seriously.

Do you think...err believe...err want others to believe I give a shit about your crazy opinions? Maybe you are that deluded,or maybe you've been brain washed to actually believe I rewrite history? If so, your words are a result of your ignorance, willful (if so dishonest and highly partisan) or congenital.

Others, no doubt, read the link to the PNAC and recognize the names of the NeoCons who signed the Statement of Principles as those who orchestrated the Iraq fiasco and cost our nation terribly.

So, post your version of history, start with the end of the first world war and how the Middle East was divided with the fall of the Ottoman Empire; then work your way up to the end George W. Bush's Administration.

I'd enjoy reading the new and revised version of this period of time, how Obama caused the Great Recession, started wars throughout the ME, ignored the attack on Benghazi and introduced the first five year plan by funding Solandra, his first effort to instill a Left Wing Marxist, Socialist, Fascist, Right Wing Regime iin America.

Doubt that, read some of the posts by other RW nuts and Obama haters, they are your alies.

Well, nobody expects to take you seriously when you are constantly enraged by different opinions. Or when you misspell words like "allies" or "Solyndra." Your post is racked with anger, not one fact among it.

When you blame Bush for everything, you post your own version of history.

Gee, a spell check Nazi, that says a whole (or is it hole, as in asshole) lot about you. When you and other don't hold Bush Accountable you engage in rewriting history. Though, most on the far right don't rewrite history, for they have no knowledge of it and simply parrot the bullshit of talking heads and AM Radio philosophers. I type fast and think fast, and don't worry about cavil punks like you. Yes, cavil is spelled correctly, so you can look it up.

 

[idb]

FUCK YOU! You're not only an asshole, you're a seditious POS.

Really, so is this what you said about Bush when he started the war in Iraq? I have a sneaking suspicion that you wanted someone to stop Bush from starting his war too. It's funny how you Democrats still hang on Obama's...ahem...coattails praising every move he makes, including going to war--AFTER railing on his predecessor. Your hypocrisy knows absolutely no bounds whatsoever.

Oh BULLSHIT. Clinton had Saddam corraled and used force whenever Saddam attempted to push the limits of the no fly zone.

Our nation had never before invaded a sovergn nation without cause - Saddam was no threat to us; yet the neocons had wanted to invade Iraq and didn't hide their desire to do so: See:

Project for the New American Century - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

And read the Statement of Principles written during the Clinton Administration. All this Mushroom Cloud threat was more bullshit, the leading neocons, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Libby wanted war and any excuse would do.

Obama had no hidden agenda, his agenda was clear from the get go. End foriegn wars, repair our nations image abroad and fix the economy badly broken by greed and a failure to regulate the so called Masters of the Universe.

I don't foresee American boots on the ground, and would not support an air and naval bombardment unless other Arab States had skin in the game. That they do is amazing and President Obama deserves credit for this accomplishment.

You have to stop reading your history off the back of a cereal box, darlin

People steeped in history can run circles around your feeble attempts to rewrite what happened there.





No one takes you seriously.

Do you think...err believe...err want others to believe I give a shit about your crazy opinions? Maybe you are that deluded,or maybe you've been brain washed to actually believe I rewrite history? If so, your words are a result of your ignorance, willful (if so dishonest and highly partisan) or congenital.

Others, no doubt, read the link to the PNAC and recognize the names of the NeoCons who signed the Statement of Principles as those who orchestrated the Iraq fiasco and cost our nation terribly.

So, post your version of history, start with the end of the first world war and how the Middle East was divided with the fall of the Ottoman Empire; then work your way up to the end George W. Bush's Administration.

I'd enjoy reading the new and revised version of this period of time, how Obama caused the Great Recession, started wars throughout the ME, ignored the attack on Benghazi and introduced the first five year plan by funding Solandra, his first effort to instill a Left Wing Marxist, Socialist, Fascist, Right Wing Regime iin America.

Doubt that, read some of the posts by other RW nuts and Obama haters, they are your alies.

Well, nobody expects to take you seriously when you are constantly enraged by different opinions. Or when you misspell words like "allies" or "Solyndra." Your post is racked with anger, not one fact among it.

When you blame Bush for everything, you post your own version of history.

You deny the existence of PNAC and the call for 'regime change' in Iraq?
You deny the influence of PNAC on the Bush administration when members of PNAC were in that administration?

 

[jon_berzerk]

Thanks for the update Econ.

under what legal authority does the prezbo have

to conduct an offensive war in Syria

The Obama administration pointed to the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force, which gives the president authority to act “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.” The administration has also cited the 2003 AUMF that authorized the president to go to war to “defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq,” then governed by Saddam Hussein.

The White House’s defenders argue that the 2001 AUMF gives Obama the authority he needs to fight ISIS because, while ISIS broke from al-Qaida in 2012, it is nonetheless composed of former al-Qaida members (at least in part), who have (or so it is argued by the administration) continuously conducted and sought to conduct attacks against the United States and its citizens and interests.

In other words, the EXACT same legal authority that Bush used to invade Iraq.

The AUMF was meant to combat al-Qaeda. Not ISIS. When they split from al-Qaeda, they were no longer affiliated with them. Note how they disowned them for being even more extreme in their ways than they were. Shouldn't that tell you something?

it is a complete mess

the khorasan group is really al qeada the same al qeada that the prezbo defeated

some time ago

however that being said the 2001 AUMF was not the one to invade Iraq

You are correct. It is the 2003 AUMF that was used to invade Iraq that I was referring to. This was in one of the two paragraphs that I quoted:

The administration has also cited the 2003 AUMF that authorized the president to go to war to “defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq,” then governed by Saddam Hussein.

Here is a bit of the "2003 AUMF." that was actually passed by Congress in late 2002.

Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002, Pub.L. 107–243, 116 Stat.1498, enacted October 16, 2002,H.J.Res. 114) is a joint resolution passed by the United States Congressi n October 2002 as Public Law No: 107-243, authorizing military action against Iraq. The Iraq Resolution or the Iraq War Resolution (formally the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq.)


The resolution authorized President Bush to use the Armed Forces of the United States"as he determines to be necessary and appropriate" in order to "defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq."

does not say much about Syria or al qeada for that matter

 

[jon_berzerk]

Operations have begun into Syria.

Thanks for the update Econ.

under what legal authority does the prezbo have

to conduct an offensive war in Syria

The Obama administration pointed to the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force, which gives the president authority to act “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.” The administration has also cited the 2003 AUMF that authorized the president to go to war to “defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq,” then governed by Saddam Hussein.

The White House’s defenders argue that the 2001 AUMF gives Obama the authority he needs to fight ISIS because, while ISIS broke from al-Qaida in 2012, it is nonetheless composed of former al-Qaida members (at least in part), who have (or so it is argued by the administration) continuously conducted and sought to conduct attacks against the United States and its citizens and interests.

In other words, the EXACT same legal authority that Bush used to invade Iraq.

The AUMF was meant to combat al-Qaeda. Not ISIS. When they split from al-Qaeda, they were no longer affiliated with them. Note how they disowned them for being even more extreme in their ways than they were. Shouldn't that tell you something?

the AUMF to invade Iraq made no mention of Al qeada

in fact we spent years discussing if al qeada was even in

Iraq before we entered the theater

 

[Wry Catcher]

Who gives a damn. How many 'wars' have we fought since we last declared war in World War II? How many times has the War Powers Act checked the president's power to commit the United States to an armed conflict without the consent of Congress?

 

[TemplarKormac]

Really, so is this what you said about Bush when he started the war in Iraq? I have a sneaking suspicion that you wanted someone to stop Bush from starting his war too. It's funny how you Democrats still hang on Obama's...ahem...coattails praising every move he makes, including going to war--AFTER railing on his predecessor. Your hypocrisy knows absolutely no bounds whatsoever.

Oh BULLSHIT. Clinton had Saddam corraled and used force whenever Saddam attempted to push the limits of the no fly zone.

Our nation had never before invaded a sovergn nation without cause - Saddam was no threat to us; yet the neocons had wanted to invade Iraq and didn't hide their desire to do so: See:

Project for the New American Century - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

And read the Statement of Principles written during the Clinton Administration. All this Mushroom Cloud threat was more bullshit, the leading neocons, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Libby wanted war and any excuse would do.

Obama had no hidden agenda, his agenda was clear from the get go. End foriegn wars, repair our nations image abroad and fix the economy badly broken by greed and a failure to regulate the so called Masters of the Universe.

I don't foresee American boots on the ground, and would not support an air and naval bombardment unless other Arab States had skin in the game. That they do is amazing and President Obama deserves credit for this accomplishment.

You have to stop reading your history off the back of a cereal box, darlin

People steeped in history can run circles around your feeble attempts to rewrite what happened there.





No one takes you seriously.

Do you think...err believe...err want others to believe I give a shit about your crazy opinions? Maybe you are that deluded,or maybe you've been brain washed to actually believe I rewrite history? If so, your words are a result of your ignorance, willful (if so dishonest and highly partisan) or congenital.

Others, no doubt, read the link to the PNAC and recognize the names of the NeoCons who signed the Statement of Principles as those who orchestrated the Iraq fiasco and cost our nation terribly.

So, post your version of history, start with the end of the first world war and how the Middle East was divided with the fall of the Ottoman Empire; then work your way up to the end George W. Bush's Administration.

I'd enjoy reading the new and revised version of this period of time, how Obama caused the Great Recession, started wars throughout the ME, ignored the attack on Benghazi and introduced the first five year plan by funding Solandra, his first effort to instill a Left Wing Marxist, Socialist, Fascist, Right Wing Regime iin America.

Doubt that, read some of the posts by other RW nuts and Obama haters, they are your alies.

Well, nobody expects to take you seriously when you are constantly enraged by different opinions. Or when you misspell words like "allies" or "Solyndra." Your post is racked with anger, not one fact among it.

When you blame Bush for everything, you post your own version of history.

Gee, a spell check Nazi, that says a whole (or is it hole, as in asshole) lot about you. When you and other don't hold Bush Accountable you engage in rewriting history. Though, most on the far right don't rewrite history, for they have no knowledge of it and simply parrot the bullshit of talking heads and AM Radio philosophers. I type fast and think fast, and don't worry about cavil punks like you. Yes, cavil is spelled correctly, so you can look it up.

You call me a Nazi and expect to have a valid point? You say you think fast and on the fly? First of all, that's your problem. No wonder you type your rants without checking the facts behind them, or spelling them correctly; you don't bother putting more than a second of thought into it.

And of course you worry about 'cavil punks' like me, you are responding to me are you not? Liar. I don't hold Bush accountable because Obama was the one with the bat, not Bush. Instead of swinging, he took three strikes down the middle and sat back down. Maliki was asking us to stay. But we turned them away. And I don't parrot any of the establishment nonsense, unlike you. I am a libertarian who has disavowed both parties. But I will call it like it is. Perhaps you should turn off Rachel Maddow and Ed Schultz.

Your mendacious attitude is your undoing.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Who gives a damn. How many 'wars' have we fought since we last declared war in World War II? How many times has the War Powers Act checked the president's power to commit the United States to an armed conflict without the consent of Congress?

Your first question:

Six.

In 1958 with the Lebanon Crisis; Senate voted 72-19, Congress voted 335-61 to authorize.

In 1964 with the Vietnam War; Senate voted 88-2, Congress voted 416-0 to authorize.

In 1983 with the Multinational Force in Lebanon; Senate voted 54-46, Congress voted 253-156 to authorize.

In 1991, with the Persian Gulf War; Senate voted 52-47, Congress voted 250-183 to authorize.

In 2001, with the Afghanistan War; Senate voted 98-0, Congress voted 420-1 to authorize.

In 2003, with the Iraq War; Senate voted 77-23, Congress voted 296-133 to authorize.

Your second question:

Five times.

Pertaining to the Grenada Conflict, the Panamanian Conflict, the Somalian Conflict, the Persian Gulf War, and the Iraq War.

Only Clinton surpassed the limit with a 78 day air campaign during the War in Kosovo. Obama invaded Libya without Congressional approval. Obama has 60 days to perform military operations in Syria until a vote is required.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Oh BULLSHIT. Clinton had Saddam corraled and used force whenever Saddam attempted to push the limits of the no fly zone.

Our nation had never before invaded a sovergn nation without cause - Saddam was no threat to us; yet the neocons had wanted to invade Iraq and didn't hide their desire to do so: See:

Project for the New American Century - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

And read the Statement of Principles written during the Clinton Administration. All this Mushroom Cloud threat was more bullshit, the leading neocons, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Libby wanted war and any excuse would do.

Obama had no hidden agenda, his agenda was clear from the get go. End foriegn wars, repair our nations image abroad and fix the economy badly broken by greed and a failure to regulate the so called Masters of the Universe.

I don't foresee American boots on the ground, and would not support an air and naval bombardment unless other Arab States had skin in the game. That they do is amazing and President Obama deserves credit for this accomplishment.

You have to stop reading your history off the back of a cereal box, darlin

People steeped in history can run circles around your feeble attempts to rewrite what happened there.





No one takes you seriously.

Do you think...err believe...err want others to believe I give a shit about your crazy opinions? Maybe you are that deluded,or maybe you've been brain washed to actually believe I rewrite history? If so, your words are a result of your ignorance, willful (if so dishonest and highly partisan) or congenital.

Others, no doubt, read the link to the PNAC and recognize the names of the NeoCons who signed the Statement of Principles as those who orchestrated the Iraq fiasco and cost our nation terribly.

So, post your version of history, start with the end of the first world war and how the Middle East was divided with the fall of the Ottoman Empire; then work your way up to the end George W. Bush's Administration.

I'd enjoy reading the new and revised version of this period of time, how Obama caused the Great Recession, started wars throughout the ME, ignored the attack on Benghazi and introduced the first five year plan by funding Solandra, his first effort to instill a Left Wing Marxist, Socialist, Fascist, Right Wing Regime iin America.

Doubt that, read some of the posts by other RW nuts and Obama haters, they are your alies.

Well, nobody expects to take you seriously when you are constantly enraged by different opinions. Or when you misspell words like "allies" or "Solyndra." Your post is racked with anger, not one fact among it.

When you blame Bush for everything, you post your own version of history.

Gee, a spell check Nazi, that says a whole (or is it hole, as in asshole) lot about you. When you and other don't hold Bush Accountable you engage in rewriting history. Though, most on the far right don't rewrite history, for they have no knowledge of it and simply parrot the bullshit of talking heads and AM Radio philosophers. I type fast and think fast, and don't worry about cavil punks like you. Yes, cavil is spelled correctly, so you can look it up.

You call me a Nazi and expect to have a valid point? You say you think fast and on the fly? First of all, that's your problem. No wonder you type your rants without checking the facts behind them, or spelling them correctly; you don't bother putting more than a second of thought into it.

And of course you worry about 'cavil punks' like me, you are responding to me are you not? Liar. I don't hold Bush accountable because Obama was the one with the bat, not Bush. Instead of swinging, he took three strikes down the middle and sat back down. Maliki was asking us to stay. But we turned them away. And I don't parrot any of the establishment nonsense, unlike you. I am a libertarian who has disavowed both parties. But I will call it like it is. Perhaps you should turn off Rachel Maddow and Ed Schultz.

Your mendacious attitude is your undoing.

A spelling Nazi is not a German Nazi, but nice try. Maliki asked us to stay? Provide the evidence, that is the first time anyone has suggested he did.

Perhaps you should reconsider following an ideology rejected by the vast majority of voters, and try to think for yourself. Your Pal Dr. Paul - a subtle use of the term as an effort to appeal to authority is noted - has also been rejected by the right, only the fringe supports his very unpragmatic ideas.

My news comes from local MSM, The Economist, Time, NPR and PBS. Of course I peek in to cable news (Fox, MSNBC and CNN) from time to time and try to read as much non fiction as fiction - some of the former is more like the latter, sadly.