Playing politics with Libya... oh, I mean Syria.

[Vast LWC]

The hypocrisy of modern US politics never ends...

Now the GOP is criticizing Obama for not taking action in Syria.

Meanwhile, when Obama did just what they are asking him to now in Libya, (after being criticized by the GOP for not taking action) they not only pulled the plug on US involvement in the operation,
but then proceeded to scream bloody murder about how unconstitutional it was, for months.

Seriously, GOP, what the fuck?

GOP critical of White House's Syria policy - CBS News

 

[dilloduck]

The hypocrisy of modern US politics never ends...

Now the GOP is criticizing Obama for not taking action in Syria.

Meanwhile, when Obama did just what they are asking him to now in Libya, (after being criticized by the GOP for not taking action) they not only pulled the plug on US involvement in the operation,
but then proceeded to scream bloody murder about how unconstitutional it was, for months.

Seriously, GOP, what the fuck?

GOP critical of White House's Syria policy - CBS News

I don't think consistency is as important in politics as is making sure that you are not on the same side of your issue at the same time as your opponent.

 

[Vast LWC]

The hypocrisy of modern US politics never ends...

Now the GOP is criticizing Obama for not taking action in Syria.

Meanwhile, when Obama did just what they are asking him to now in Libya, (after being criticized by the GOP for not taking action) they not only pulled the plug on US involvement in the operation,
but then proceeded to scream bloody murder about how unconstitutional it was, for months.

Seriously, GOP, what the fuck?

GOP critical of White House's Syria policy - CBS News

I don't think consistency is as important in politics as is making sure that you are not on the same side of your issue at the same time as your opponent.

Exactly. And that's why we can never get anything worthwhile done.

 

[dilloduck]

The hypocrisy of modern US politics never ends...

Now the GOP is criticizing Obama for not taking action in Syria.

Meanwhile, when Obama did just what they are asking him to now in Libya, (after being criticized by the GOP for not taking action) they not only pulled the plug on US involvement in the operation,
but then proceeded to scream bloody murder about how unconstitutional it was, for months.

Seriously, GOP, what the fuck?

GOP critical of White House's Syria policy - CBS News

I don't think consistency is as important in politics as is making sure that you are not on the same side of your issue at the same time as your opponent.

Exactly. And that's why we can never get anything worthwhile done.

and never will EXCEPT by whatever good individuals do on a day to day basis. Looking to politicians to solve anything is a mental illness. We as a nation should know better by now.

 

[Ragnar]

Would be nice if Obama would make his decisions based on American security in a constitutional matter. Then the GOP would be wrong x2 for being contrarian just for the sake of playing politics.

 

[Vast LWC]

Would be nice if Obama would make his decisions based on American security in a constitutional matter. Then the GOP would be wrong x2 for being contrarian just for the sake of playing politics.

While that's true, the last time this exact scenario occurred, Congress had sent a pretty clear, public message that they would support him before-hand, and then, once we were involved, they backed off their support, leaving him to hang in the wind.

If Congress had continued to support his efforts in Libya, it would never have been a Constitutional matter in the first place.

And now, they're trying to do the exact same thing in Syria.

Fool me once...

 

[Ragnar]

Would be nice if Obama would make his decisions based on American security in a constitutional matter. Then the GOP would be wrong x2 for being contrarian just for the sake of playing politics.

While that's true, the last time this exact scenario occurred, Congress had sent a pretty clear, public message that they would support him before-hand, and then, once we were involved, they backed off their support, leaving him to hang in the wind.

If Congress had continued to support his efforts in Libya, it would never have been a Constitutional matter in the first place.

And now, they're trying to do the exact same thing in Syria.

Fool me once...

Same thing happened in Iraq.

Same thing happened in Vietnam.

That covers my lifetime but for all I know it's "same as it ever was".

 

[starcraftzzz]

Would be nice if Obama would make his decisions based on American security in a constitutional matter. Then the GOP would be wrong x2 for being contrarian just for the sake of playing politics.

While that's true, the last time this exact scenario occurred, Congress had sent a pretty clear, public message that they would support him before-hand, and then, once we were involved, they backed off their support, leaving him to hang in the wind.

If Congress had continued to support his efforts in Libya, it would never have been a Constitutional matter in the first place.

And now, they're trying to do the exact same thing in Syria.

Fool me once...

Same thing happened in Iraq.

Same thing happened in Vietnam.

That covers my lifetime but for all I know it's "same as it ever was".

WE never invaded Libya and lost 0 soldiers int he process

 

[Ragnar]

While that's true, the last time this exact scenario occurred, Congress had sent a pretty clear, public message that they would support him before-hand, and then, once we were involved, they backed off their support, leaving him to hang in the wind.

If Congress had continued to support his efforts in Libya, it would never have been a Constitutional matter in the first place.

And now, they're trying to do the exact same thing in Syria.

Fool me once...

Same thing happened in Iraq.

Same thing happened in Vietnam.

That covers my lifetime but for all I know it's "same as it ever was".

WE never invaded Libya and lost 0 soldiers int he process

Bully for US. It could be unpleasant to bear responsibility for whatever government takes control there next.

 

[Avatar4321]

I dont recall wanting the President to send the troops into Syria. When the heck am I the last to know that I have this point of view?

 

[Vast LWC]

Same thing happened in Iraq.

Same thing happened in Vietnam.

That covers my lifetime but for all I know it's "same as it ever was".

I suppose that could be said. Though both of those didn't lose support until years later, after things took a turn for the worst.

In Libya, it literally started to happen the day after he started bombing.

 

[Vast LWC]

I dont recall wanting the President to send the troops into Syria. When the heck am I the last to know that I have this point of view?

Are you a prominent member of the GOP?

What office do you hold?

I'm glad some of the GOP constituency are not in on the game.

Perhaps you should pass the word on to your representatives that they should shut the hell up.

 

[elvis]

should not have been involved in Libya, Syria, or Iraq...

or Korea, or Vietnam, or...

 

[Vast LWC]

should not have been involved in Libya, Syria, or Iraq...

or Korea, or Vietnam, or...

Now THAT is a position I can respect.

 

[Ragnar]

Same thing happened in Iraq.

Same thing happened in Vietnam.

That covers my lifetime but for all I know it's "same as it ever was".

I suppose that could be said. Though both of those didn't lose support until years later, after things took a turn for the worst.

In Libya, it literally started to happen the day after he started bombing.

You don't remember 2003 so well. It did not take so long for the Dems to start pretending their "use of force" votes were intended to mean "strongly worded letters" and "Bush tricked us".

In Libya, it literally started to happen the day after he started bombing because the President literally started the bombing without a vote or even a consultation from the Congress. (the only branch that can constitutionally authorize war, "police actions", "use of force", UFITA" and "overseas contingency operations" or whatever the Hell they decide to call the next one)

 

[elvis]

Same thing happened in Iraq.

Same thing happened in Vietnam.

That covers my lifetime but for all I know it's "same as it ever was".

I suppose that could be said. Though both of those didn't lose support until years later, after things took a turn for the worst.

In Libya, it literally started to happen the day after he started bombing.

You don't remember 2003 so well. It did not take so long for the Dems to start pretending their "use of force" votes were intended to mean "strongly worded letters" and "Bush tricked us".

In Libya, it literally started to happen the day after he started bombing because the President literally started the bombing without a vote or even a consultation from the Congress. (the only branch that can constitutionally authorize war, "police actions", "use of force", UFITA" and "overseas contingency operations" or whatever the Hell they decide to call the next one)

the buck doesn't stop at Congress. Doesn't matter if you're talking about Bush's Iraq or Obama's credit rating downgrade.

 

[Ragnar]

should not have been involved in Libya, Syria, or Iraq...

or Korea, or Vietnam, or...

Now THAT is a position I can respect.

I can agree with most of that. Libya and Vietnam were bad ideas as was Iraq part II which could have been avoided if Iraq 1991 was done right. (possibly avoiding the current issues with Iran and Syria)

I think it was Churchill who made a decent case that WWII could have been avoided if America had not involved herself in WWI. Hindsight being 20/20.

 

[Ragnar]

I suppose that could be said. Though both of those didn't lose support until years later, after things took a turn for the worst.

In Libya, it literally started to happen the day after he started bombing.

You don't remember 2003 so well. It did not take so long for the Dems to start pretending their "use of force" votes were intended to mean "strongly worded letters" and "Bush tricked us".

In Libya, it literally started to happen the day after he started bombing because the President literally started the bombing without a vote or even a consultation from the Congress. (the only branch that can constitutionally authorize war, "police actions", "use of force", UFITA" and "overseas contingency operations" or whatever the Hell they decide to call the next one)

the buck doesn't stop at Congress. Doesn't matter if you're talking about Bush's Iraq or Obama's credit rating downgrade.

True. But the Founding Fathers bent over backwards to put both war authorization and the power of the purse in the Legislature. However, I agree that does not absolve the POTUS of pushing and signing into law bad policy in either case.

 

[Vast LWC]

You don't remember 2003 so well. It did not take so long for the Dems to start pretending their "use of force" votes were intended to mean "strongly worded letters" and "Bush tricked us".

In Libya, it literally started to happen the day after he started bombing because the President literally started the bombing without a vote or even a consultation from the Congress. (the only branch that can constitutionally authorize war, "police actions", "use of force", UFITA" and "overseas contingency operations" or whatever the Hell they decide to call the next one)

That would be incorrect. He consulted with the Senate on the matter.

 

[Ragnar]

You don't remember 2003 so well. It did not take so long for the Dems to start pretending their "use of force" votes were intended to mean "strongly worded letters" and "Bush tricked us".

In Libya, it literally started to happen the day after he started bombing because the President literally started the bombing without a vote or even a consultation from the Congress. (the only branch that can constitutionally authorize war, "police actions", "use of force", UFITA" and "overseas contingency operations" or whatever the Hell they decide to call the next one)

That would be incorrect. He consulted with the Senate on the matter.

Well that almost makes use of force legal then doesn't it.