If Congress votes No on Syria and Obama orders bombings anyway, Consitutional Crisis?

[C_Clayton_Jones]

President Obama opened his mouth and drew a line in the sand...

Now they have crossed it and slapped him in the face....

He now has no Idea what to do so he will lay it on congress and hope to blame the Republicans for anything that goes wrong....

Weren't they the ones that were pleading Obama to do something? Are they flip-flopping now?

Oh, we get it, as soon as Obama is for something, it's time for the GOP to be against it.

Gotcha!

Senators Urge Obama to Strike Assad's Forces | The Weekly Standard

True.

The partisan right is extremely conflicted between their traditional warmongering tendencies and knee-jerk propensity to oppose everything Obama.

 

[Circe]

Indiscriminate bombing a country that has not attacked us, poses no threat to us and does not have any international authority is an act of war that would entitle the country attacked and its allies to retaliate with any level of force it deems necessary.

True! But that won't happen: we never attack countries that can retaliate in any way.

 

[Circe]

One country bombing another country is of course not an act of war.

It is an act of peace...and a humanitarian mission as well.

Yessssssss.......

All our wars lately have been social work wars to"help" the people we are shooting and bombing. Ten years long and losing, however....

Humanitarian wars aren't working out.

Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan -- I believe these are all wars of security colonization, but all have failed and in each case we've been driven out.

This whole concept needs revising, I'd say.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

If the Congress votes NO on intervention of any kind in Syria, yet Obama orders the military to act any way, has Obama viollated the Constitution, especially since Obama said

“The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation,”

When he was a Senator and there was a question as to President Bush ordering the bombing of Iran?

You’re confusing politics with the legal process.

You may accuse Obama of being a partisan hypocrite for his inconsistent and subjective opinion as to presidential powers concerning military action as a senator as opposed to president, but there’s no ‘Constitutional crisis’ because no Federal court has ruled as to the constitutionality of a president using military force absent Congressional approval. See, e.g. Dellums v. Bush (1990).

 

[Freewill]

Just apply the conservative view of Reagan's 1986 bombing of Libya, unauthorized,

and then turn it upside down, because a Democrat is president,

and there you have the conservative opinion of an Obama bombing of Syria without authorization from Congress.

"A limited engagement involving no troops on the ground and relying on weapons fired from air and sea, does not appear to fulfill the vague criteria for 'hostilities' under the War Powers Resolution," says Christopher McKnight Nichols, a professor at Oregon State University and an expert on the U.S. military history. Thus the intervention did not require a deadline for congressional approval or force withdrawal.

Obama & Reagan both bombed Libya without congressional approval. No direct threat to USA.

President Clinton bombed Kosovo in 1999 without congressional approval. No direct threat to USA.

President Reagan gave aid to the Contras in Nicaragua without congressional approval. No direct threat to USA.

President Clinton ordered air operations against Serbia, Yugoslavia, in 1999 to prevent the ethnic cleansing without congressional approval. No direct threat to USA.

So why did Obama blink this time? Political expedience? If so that tells you what he really thinks about people in the ME. Or maybe his tee time conflicted with his plans to bomb the crap out of another ME country.

 

[KissMy]

Just apply the conservative view of Reagan's 1986 bombing of Libya, unauthorized,

and then turn it upside down, because a Democrat is president,

and there you have the conservative opinion of an Obama bombing of Syria without authorization from Congress.

"A limited engagement involving no troops on the ground and relying on weapons fired from air and sea, does not appear to fulfill the vague criteria for 'hostilities' under the War Powers Resolution," says Christopher McKnight Nichols, a professor at Oregon State University and an expert on the U.S. military history. Thus the intervention did not require a deadline for congressional approval or force withdrawal.

Obama & Reagan both bombed Libya without congressional approval. No direct threat to USA.

President Clinton bombed Kosovo in 1999 without congressional approval. No direct threat to USA.

President Reagan gave aid to the Contras in Nicaragua without congressional approval. No direct threat to USA.

President Clinton ordered air operations against Serbia, Yugoslavia, in 1999 to prevent the ethnic cleansing without congressional approval. No direct threat to USA.

So why did Obama blink this time? Political expedience? If so that tells you what he really thinks about people in the ME. Or maybe his tee time conflicted with his plans to bomb the crap out of another ME country.

Obama is using congress as cover so he does not have to back up his war mongering words. He is trying not to be the President that attacked the most countries in history because got the Piece Prize. That way Bill Clinton can still hold that most countries attacked title.

Bill Clinton attacked way more countries than Obama, Bush, Bush & Reagan. By my count Clinton attacked 8 different countries. Obama, Clinton & FDR are the most war presidents.

- Kosovo
- Balkans
- Afghanistan
- Bosnia
- Iraq 3 times
- Somalia
- Sudan
- Yugoslavia

Obama attacked 5 countries & backed revolution in 5 countries.

- Obama Ordered escalated U.S. Military Strikes on Afghanistan.
- Obama Ordered continued U.S. Military Strikes on Iraq.
- Obama Ordered U.S. Military Strikes on Pakistan.
- Obama Ordered U.S. Military Strikes on Yemen.
- Obama Ordered U.S. Military Strikes on Libya.
- Obama backing "Day of Rage" in Egypt.
- Obama backing "Day of Rage" in Iran.
- Obama backing "Day of Rage" in Tunisia.
- Obama backing "Day of Rage" in Yemen.
- Obama backing "Day of Rage" in Bahrain.

 

[percysunshine]

So why did Obama blink this time? Political expedience?

Boehner called him up and said 'Because of the sequester, there is no money for this. You need us to appropriate it'.

 

[Mertex]

Hmmmm Using a satire article as a basis for your position?

Interesting..

Do you relay on Jon Stewart and Colbert also?

How about "The Onion"?

I thought it got the point across, as well as the intent from the right, in a jovial manner. But, please don't tell me that you were not aware of the GOP pushing Obama to do something since way back, because I would have a hard time believing that.

You want more serious sources?

Senators John McCain, Joe Lieberman, and Lindsey Graham issued a joint statement today urging the Obama administration to act on Syria. “f requested by the Syrian National Council and the Free Syrian Army, the United States should help organize an international effort to protect civilian population centers in Syria through airstrikes on Assad’s forces," they write. "To be clear: This will first require the United States and our partners to suppress the Syrian regime’s air defenses in at least part of the country."
Senators Urge Obama to Strike Assad's Forces | The Weekly Standard


House Speaker John Boehner’s office got advanced warning Thursday of the announcement from the White House, but his office didn’t pass judgement on his strategy. It only said it’s “long past time to bring the Assad regime’s bloodshed in Syria to an end.”
GOP to Obama on Syria: Where you been? - Jake Sherman - POLITICO.com

Your attempt to deflect by making it seem like I was fabricating BS is even more interesting.

You're claiming Lieberman is a right winger ?

Are you claiming that McCain, Boehner and Graham are not?

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

I thought it got the point across, as well as the intent from the right, in a jovial manner. But, please don't tell me that you were not aware of the GOP pushing Obama to do something since way back, because I would have a hard time believing that.

You want more serious sources?

Senators John McCain, Joe Lieberman, and Lindsey Graham issued a joint statement today urging the Obama administration to act on Syria. “f requested by the Syrian National Council and the Free Syrian Army, the United States should help organize an international effort to protect civilian population centers in Syria through airstrikes on Assad’s forces," they write. "To be clear: This will first require the United States and our partners to suppress the Syrian regime’s air defenses in at least part of the country."
Senators Urge Obama to Strike Assad's Forces | The Weekly Standard


House Speaker John Boehner’s office got advanced warning Thursday of the announcement from the White House, but his office didn’t pass judgement on his strategy. It only said it’s “long past time to bring the Assad regime’s bloodshed in Syria to an end.”
GOP to Obama on Syria: Where you been? - Jake Sherman - POLITICO.com

Your attempt to deflect by making it seem like I was fabricating BS is even more interesting.

You're claiming Lieberman is a right winger ?

Are you claiming that McCain, Boehner and Graham are not?

I'll claim that.. they're sure not conservatives.

 

[Mertex]

You're claiming Lieberman is a right winger ?

Are you claiming that McCain, Boehner and Graham are not?

I'll claim that.. they're sure not conservatives.

So, who in the Republican party is? So far none of your Republican presidents have been conservative - must be a Republican myth to be conservative.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Are you claiming that McCain, Boehner and Graham are not?

I'll claim that.. they're sure not conservatives.

So, who in the Republican party is? So far none of your Republican presidents have been conservative - must be a Republican myth to be conservative.

No, not really. But there are way to many in the GOP content to be Democrat "lite"... you know, the GD moderates.

 

[kaz]

Libya was behind an attack on the US, and he retaliated.

Syria attacked the US when ...

That's the cue for your answer, BTW.

Really? lol

yes they were berlin disco, hello.....

Yes, that and other incidents clearly targeted not only Americans but the American military. We don't respond to that and we're just painting a bulls eye on our back.

The message should be clear. You leave us alone, we stay out of your business. You target Americans we'll pay you back many times over.

 

[kaz]

Just apply the conservative view of Reagan's 1986 bombing of Libya, unauthorized,

and then turn it upside down, because a Democrat is president,

and there you have the conservative opinion of an Obama bombing of Syria without authorization from Congress.

Libya was behind an attack on the US, and he retaliated.

Syria attacked the US when ...

That's the cue for your answer, BTW.

Really? lol

Your knowledge of history is just sad.

 

[Circe]

You're claiming Lieberman is a right winger ?

Are you claiming that McCain, Boehner and Graham are not?

I'll claim that.. they're sure not conservatives.

No........what these Republicans are is neocons, right? Neocons are particularly warmongering, pro-Israel we'll-fight-for-them types like the guys who run the Weekly Standard.

I don't know about Boehner, but McCain and Graham are definitely considered neocons, never saw a war they didn't want to jump into.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Just apply the conservative view of Reagan's 1986 bombing of Libya, unauthorized,

and then turn it upside down, because a Democrat is president,

and there you have the conservative opinion of an Obama bombing of Syria without authorization from Congress.

he didn't need authorization just as obama didn't in libya...

Then why are all your nutty pals insisting he needs authorization to bomb Syria?

 

[Trajan]

Just apply the conservative view of Reagan's 1986 bombing of Libya, unauthorized,

and then turn it upside down, because a Democrat is president,

and there you have the conservative opinion of an Obama bombing of Syria without authorization from Congress.

he didn't need authorization just as obama didn't in libya...

Then why are all your nutty pals insisting he needs authorization to bomb Syria?

its the usual....The Big "H"...and there is plenty of that to go round isn't there?


its the nutty pals of yours who had issues with iraq ( even after congressional votes to affirm) then sat on their hands while he attacked Libya.

heres the point that differentiates this all; he created the red line, then sat on his hands, then said he was going to attack, sent his sec state out there Friday to make a speech to tell us why, laying it all out which, btw the way both sides right and left who usually don't agree, he made a very good speech as the case to go ahead.

Then 16 hours later...bam, Obama pulls a full flip and all of sudden he wants congress to approve, and at the same time tell us he must attack anyway......

He added the extra benchmark which doesn't seem to be a real benchmark anyway....he was vested with the power to do what he did in say , Libya becasue the framers realized you cannot respond to this kind of issue ( as he framed it- national security threat, to us/region etc.) via 535 individuals, it would be chaos, and the war powers act addressed that. He can start, but after 60 days hes got to make his case to continue.

Throwing this back at those 535 individuals has given him ( he thinks) political cover becasue he is paralyzed. He drew a line and now, doesn't have the will to make his threat good.

The reality is he made those red line statements, arguing over why we shouldn't enforce it etc. well, that does not abrogate the damage done, which will be infinitely worse if we do nothing. Now, hes upped the ante, dragging congress into his mess, if congress votes this down, not only will the world see him as ineffectual and hesitant, they will see us too as same, and that is very dangerous.
​​​​
bzxh11

He think he sees a way out by using congress, no, that won't change minds 'over there', not at all. They know he can act. Hes in a panic, this is a mess he cannot take both sides on or talk his way out of, but, hes trying.....

 

[Circe]

[.

heres the point that differentiates this all; he created the red line, then sat on his hands, then said he was going to attack, sent his sec state out there Friday to make a speech to tell us why, laying it all out which, btw the way both sides right and left who usually don't agree, he made a very good speech as the case to go ahead.

Then 16 hours later...bam, Obama pulls a full flip and all of sudden he wants congress to approve, and at the same time tell us he must attack anyway......

Yes, good summary of quite an interesting situation. I think Kerry pushed for war too hard and the big 0 pulled the rug out from under Kerry.

But the most important issue surely were the polls, right? Ours here is running 141 against a strike to 6 for!! Now, ouch, in terms of not getting impeached, you know?

If he is JUST after Syria, public support is WILDLY opposed.

If as I suspect this is the entering wedge to getting into a war to clean up the Iran problem, which would be a BIG war, how can he possibly do that with no, zero, zilch public support?

He can't. Not and hope to win, he can't.

So he pulled back.

 

[Contumacious]

.....he was vested with the power to do what he did in say , Libya becasue the framers realized you cannot respond to this kind of issue ( as he framed it- national security threat, to us/region etc.) via 535 individuals, it would be chaos, and the war powers act addressed that. He can start, but after 60 days hes got to make his case to continue. :

Wut?

Although McCain is old enough , he is not a Founding Father.

Recheck your premises..

.

 

[kyzr]

[.

heres the point that differentiates this all; he created the red line, then sat on his hands, then said he was going to attack, sent his sec state out there Friday to make a speech to tell us why, laying it all out which, btw the way both sides right and left who usually don't agree, he made a very good speech as the case to go ahead.

Then 16 hours later...bam, Obama pulls a full flip and all of sudden he wants congress to approve, and at the same time tell us he must attack anyway......

Yes, good summary of quite an interesting situation. I think Kerry pushed for war too hard and the big 0 pulled the rug out from under Kerry.

But the most important issue surely were the polls, right? Ours here is running 141 against a strike to 6 for!! Now, ouch, in terms of not getting impeached, you know?

If he is JUST after Syria, public support is WILDLY opposed.

If as I suspect this is the entering wedge to getting into a war to clean up the Iran problem, which would be a BIG war, how can he possibly do that with no, zero, zilch public support?

He can't. Not and hope to win, he can't. So he pulled back.

I like Rand Paul's take on Syria. BO would enter the civil war on the same side as AQ?! We're talking about a lot of military spending and a lot of risk of the ME exploding for not a lot of "benefit".

BO sees what is on his calendar with the sequester, and the debt ceiling debate, and helicopter Ben's taper which will send the economy down, and the 2014 talking points if/when the ME turns to sh!t, (there goes the Senate), etc. Not to mention all the furor about Obamacare when that "train wreck" hits and unemployment rises, etc. I hope the WH has their aluminum hats on tight...

 

[Antares]

Just apply the conservative view of Reagan's 1986 bombing of Libya, unauthorized,

and then turn it upside down, because a Democrat is president,

and there you have the conservative opinion of an Obama bombing of Syria without authorization from Congress.

he didn't need authorization just as obama didn't in libya...

Then why are all your nutty pals insisting he needs authorization to bomb Syria?

Why are you dumbshits advocating that he does bomb Syria?