Walter Jones: obama if you start anymore wars without Congressional approval

[TakeAStepBack]

What i believe about the Bush administrations crimes are irrelevant. But torture, just as one item, is pretty hard to dispute as being in violation of both domestic and international laws. Regardless of how the DOJ gave it the spin. That has nothing to do with Obama's illegal war. Hope and Change, remember? I dont see any of that, so your left wing is just as big a fail (more so economically) than their right counterpart.


Quit deflecting adn own it. Your Democrat president is in violation of the law. Period. Own it. Eat it. Swallow it and for the love of all the country show you dont support it simply because you want to be on the "left".


Simpletons.

No, I'm not a republican party supporter Putting labels on me when you're clearly trying to cover for Obama does not make me a republican supporter.

Clinton was impeached for purjury adn obstruciton of justice. Frankly, there had to be more to it for impeachment to play out as it did over his affair with the aid. I didn't support that decision either and have often said there had to be more to it than the public was getting to know.

Regardless, it doesn't fit here, it's a piss poor attempt at deflection.

 

[BlindBoo]

If it was Bush you progressives would have a field day though. it's fine if your team does it. Fuckin' pukes.

Poor Bushies. I will remind you that most everybody, progressives included, were behind the invasion of Afghanistan to get the fucks that did 9-11. People didn't turn on the Bush administration till they started using propaganda to morph the emotion we all felt that day into the drive to invade Iraq.

I wasn't a Bush supporter. You simply want to dodge the FACT that Obama conducted an illegal war in Libya and keep trying to side step that by going back to Bush, or simply just ignoring facts.

I wasn't the one who brought up progressivse being partisan simply because it was President Bush. Our part in the NATO Lybian operation doesn't amount to war. Now if we had invaded, occupied and started nation building then that would be different......

 

[TakeAStepBack]

So, a no-fly zone, bombing infrastructure (killing civilians in the process) adn arming rebels is not an act of war against another nation? That's rich. So as long as no boots land on the ground (and we did have boots on the ground) it isn't a war? You progressives will go to great length to dismiss this presidents illegal action as OK. How about telling us how no soldiers were killed again. Disgusting.

I wonder how the US would react if our country was experiencing what amounted to civil war and the Arab league decided to impose a no-fly zone and proceed to bombing our nation's infrastructure. Do you think we would be calling it an act of war.

it is an act of war.

 

[BlindBoo]

For the same reason Cheny and Bush were never brought up on war crimes charges. The answer is that the executives live above the law of the land that they create on our behalf. I'm not a fucking republican party cheerleader either, so that hackery isn't going to work here.

I don't have to explain shit. It is the Obama supporters that need to explain how it's OK for their man to conduct illegal war activities when they were screaming bloody murder over Bushes actions.

I do have to say though, claiming that Libya cost less and we didn't lose any soldiers is by far, the MOST disgusting display of inhumane ignorance of all time. It's repugnant to the core and makes me sick. The next person that says that to me in striking distance is getting a burger snot spit in their face. There is absolutely no excuse for killing innocent people and it's even all the more gross when labeled a humanitarian effort.

Progressives are anything and everything but tolerant and well, progressive. Bunch of degenerates.

What would have happen to the Lybians in Benghazi had NATO not intevened?

What I failed to mention in my earlier post was the number of innocent Iraqi civilian that were killed due to the Bush Administrations invasion and occupation of Iraq, compared to the number of innocent Lybians killed in the NATO intervention.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Changing teh definition of war to suit your likings. It's sucha fuckign disgrace on the progressives behalf.
"Killing innocent people in non acts of war are justified. We didnt lose a single soldier and saved a lot of money!!"

All hail Obama!

I'm done. You will never acknowledge a single fault with tis president. He can do absolutely no wrong adn if he does? Change definitions, ignore facts and keep marching.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

For the same reason Cheny and Bush were never brought up on war crimes charges. The answer is that the executives live above the law of the land that they create on our behalf. I'm not a fucking republican party cheerleader either, so that hackery isn't going to work here.

I don't have to explain shit. It is the Obama supporters that need to explain how it's OK for their man to conduct illegal war activities when they were screaming bloody murder over Bushes actions.

I do have to say though, claiming that Libya cost less and we didn't lose any soldiers is by far, the MOST disgusting display of inhumane ignorance of all time. It's repugnant to the core and makes me sick. The next person that says that to me in striking distance is getting a burger snot spit in their face. There is absolutely no excuse for killing innocent people and it's even all the more gross when labeled a humanitarian effort.

Progressives are anything and everything but tolerant and well, progressive. Bunch of degenerates.

What would have happen to the Lybians in Benghazi had NATO not intevened?

What I failed to mention in my earlier post was the number of innocent Iraqi civilian that were killed due to the Bush Administrations invasion and occupation of Iraq, compared to the number of innocent Lybians killed in the NATO intervention.

It isn't a compare and contrast thing. It's wrong in BOTH instances. You however, only see fault in one action. It's a disgrace. You should be ashamed of yourself (but we know you're not).

 

[BlindBoo]

Korea and American wars like Vietnam were the reason Congress made the WPA. Iraq was a war. Lybia? Not an American war. The presidents decision to support NATO in this is simply not impeachable. IMHO.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

In your opinion, that's fine. He was utilizing military forces for more than 60 days abroad. He did not receive congressional approval and instead, told them he didn't need it. He's in violation of the WPA of 1973, whether it hurts your fragile sensibilities or not. The DOJ can claim all kinds of shit through changing word definitions to suit the agenda at hand. The reality is the law was broken and war crimes are high crimes and the offence is one of impeachment proceedings.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Korea and American wars like Vietnam were the reason Congress made the WPA. Iraq was a war. Lybia? Not an American war. The presidents decision to support NATO in this is simply not impeachable. IMHO.

The war powers Resolution

CONSULTATION

SEC. 3. The President in every possible instance shall consult with Congress before introducing United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into situation where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, and after every such introduction shall consult regularly with the Congress until United States Armed Forces are no longer engaged in hostilities or have been removed from such situations.

REPORTING

SEC. 4. (a) In the absence of a declaration of war, in any case in which United States Armed Forces are introduced--

(1) into hostilities or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances;

(2) into the territory, airspace or waters of a foreign nation, while equipped for combat, except for deployments which relate solely to supply, replacement, repair, or training of such forces; or

(3) in numbers which substantially enlarge United States Armed Forces equipped for combat already located in a foreign nation; the president shall submit within 48 hours to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and to the President pro tempore of the Senate a report, in writing, setting forth--

(A) the circumstances necessitating the introduction of United States Armed Forces;

(B) the constitutional and legislative authority under which such introduction took place; and

(C) the estimated scope and duration of the hostilities or involvement.

(b) The President shall provide such other information as the Congress may request in the fulfillment of its constitutional responsibilities with respect to committing the Nation to war and to the use of United States Armed Forces abroad

(c) Whenever United States Armed Forces are introduced into hostilities or into any situation described in subsection (a) of this section, the President shall, so long as such armed forces continue to be engaged in such hostilities or situation, report to the Congress periodically on the status of such hostilities or situation as well as on the scope and duration of such hostilities or situation, but in no event shall he report to the Congress less often than once every six months.

Avalon Project - War Powers Resolution

 

[BlindBoo]

Changing teh definition of war to suit your likings. It's sucha fuckign disgrace on the progressives behalf.
"Killing innocent people in non acts of war are justified. We didnt lose a single soldier and saved a lot of money!!"

All hail Obama!

I'm done. You will never acknowledge a single fault with tis president. He can do absolutely no wrong adn if he does? Change definitions, ignore facts and keep marching.

Was it not a strategic objectve to remove Kaddafi?

That we didn't lose a single soldier is a good thing.

That we didn't waste hundreds of billions of dollars too is a good thing.

Killing innocent people is not a good thing.

Not sure who the fuck you're talking about but President Obama has been a progressives nightmare in the whitehouse. I don't agree with many of his decisions. However pursuing impeachment over our involment in Lybia is a waste of time. My biggest issue is using a second drones attack on first responders to an initial drone attack. Like the Helo in Iraq caught by Wikilieaks. Apparently we do that shit.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Changing teh definition of war to suit your likings. It's sucha fuckign disgrace on the progressives behalf.
"Killing innocent people in non acts of war are justified. We didnt lose a single soldier and saved a lot of money!!"

All hail Obama!

I'm done. You will never acknowledge a single fault with tis president. He can do absolutely no wrong adn if he does? Change definitions, ignore facts and keep marching.

Was it not a strategic objectve to remove Kaddafi?

That we didn't lose a single soldier is a good thing.

That we didn't waste hundreds of billions of dollars too is a good thing.

Killing innocent people is not a good thing.

Not sure who the fuck you're talking about but President Obama has been a progressives nightmare in the whitehouse. I don't agree with many of his decisions. However pursuing impeachment over our involment in Lybia is a waste of time. My biggest issue is using a second drones attack on first responders to an initial drone attack. Like the Helo in Iraq caught by Wikilieaks. Apparently we do that shit.

Was Gaddafi a threat to U.S. National security? Hell in my opinion obama is more of a threat to U.S. National security than Gaddafi was.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Removing Kaddafi was never the intial plan as sold to the public for action. it was about humanitarian aid. Aid that saw many people being killed crossing the sea into Italy because there was no aid. The "aid" we were providing was military aid tot he rebels to squash Kaddafi. It was never sold that way, it was never agree to by congress after the 60 day WPA expiration.

Now the country is ne giant human rights nightmare. Complete with al qaeda running the show, factional disputes of power, torture, executions, maiming and who knows what other travesties. Replacing one dictator with several hundred does not seem like a good idea. Neither does bombing humans in a humanitarian effort. That's logic on its head.

War is peace!