Obama to seek congress approval

[kaz]

But our involvement was absolutely NOT Unconstitutional. Your CLAIM is baseless and pretty ******* stupid.

The text of the Constitution is baseless, got it. Defense of the US is in. Neither oil or ousting governments because we don't like them is.

It's your view that's baseless. But go ahead and keep insisting the text of the Constitution is baseless to determine what's Constitutional.

If you understand that the Constitution is based on enumerated powers, show the power to secure oil or intervene because we don't like a government in the Constitution.

 

[kaz]

But our involvement was absolutely NOT Unconstitutional. Your CLAIM is baseless and pretty ******* stupid.

To add, to become law, according to the Constitution, a bill must pass in both houses. Does that mean that anything that is passed is automatically Constitutional since it passed according to the Constitutional process, or in addition to the bill passing both houses, does the content of the bill also need to be based on an enumerated Federal authority?

Ditto declaration of war. Congress declaring war is the Constitutional process, but the content of the declaration must be based on a Federal authority, and the only enumerated Federal authority for the military is to defend the United States.

 

[freedombecki]

Of course they are..

Bottom line is the US ALREADY screwed the pooch on this issue during the Iraq/Iran war.

This is a chance for Redemption.

Iraq did use poison gas during the Iran/Iraq war. Are you suggesting that we should have taken sides with Iran? The same Iran that invaded the US Embassy and held US citizens hostage for months? I don't think so.

How about staying the **** out of it to begin with?

Short of that, how about Reagan letting Saddam know that there would be serious repercussions if he used chemical weapons, instead of actually helping Saddam to achieve his chemical weapons attacks?

Your article of 2013 does not in any way conform to the information put out by the state department a decade ago. Iraq acquired chemical agents after pleading medical necessity for combatting diseases by altering DNA in some microbes. This was presented to the medical side to give the Iraqis full access to microbial agents so they could seek cures for illnesses in their part of the world. The Iraqis were given carte blanche for research and educational purposes is my recollection. They were given full access to what we knew and agents they said they needed to study were given. It was not known by us they would turn these agents against their own people and their neighbors. If we flubbed, it was because of deception in accessing our chemical agents to use as a modus operandi to exterminate people with instead of to cure people. We had no idea they would do that at the time the agreement was made to the best of my knowledge, Synthaholic. I remember reading that blurb. The blame game stuff came later. We now know that full access to medical experimentation should exclude chemical agents that kill. When we found out what was really the objective in this little shell game, we were quite angry, I assure you. It's just that it got spun out of control and is now lamented as intentional on our part. Nothing could be further from true. We were accessed through the Medical Community, and we had no idea it was their War Department making the demands of their physicians to get deadly agents to kill enemies.

It's like 9/11. We really didn't know how thoroughly our strengths and weaknesses were being cased by bin Laden's underlings in AL Qaeda. One agency knew about a few odd reports of Middle Easterners taking flying lessons, then dumping the lessons before learning how to land the planes. It didn't occur to anyone it was anything but a few people dropping out of school. We had no way of connecting the dots that the drop outs dropped out because they were not allowed to learn how to land so their mission would be done, ending in the middle of the World trade Center towers, the Pentagon, and likely other targets around Washington that would wipe our nation of all its leadership.

We're human over here, not the least bit psychic nor clairvoyant.

All we can try to do is to not let the same errors repeat themselves, and to prevent other events that sound like too-crazy-to-consider methods of killing Americans

Well, that's what I think.

I read Madelyn Albright's notes on Iraq. Much of the Bush starting State Department actions were consistent with her writings. Saddam had his finger in every hate-America pie in the Middle East. It was known by Mrs. Albright that he was behind the fortunately unsuccessful assassination plot against President George HW Bush on her watch, but it wasn't known until a full investigation discovered it.

Sadly, we are now smarter.

 

[Vox]

[/b]

It was illegal because it violated the UN Charter.

Nothing the UN did made the war legal or illegal. It was illegal because it violated the Constitution. The powers of the US military were specifically limited to "defense." Defending the American people from foreign governments like the Taliban and Libya is defense. Protecting oil supplies or attacking governments we don't like isn't. The Federal government is by the 10th Amendment prohibited from doing anything it has no authority to do. Securing oil is not an enumerated authority of the Federal government. The UN is irrelevant.

It was absolutely and purely legal and never violated our Constitution - actually everything was done according to the Constitution.

 

[Vox]

Why the **** can we either pay for the oil or get the enviro-nazis out of the way and explore sources in our own country?

.

We're on the verge of energy independence with horizontal fracking and the left are fighting that too. That's after fighting nuclear, which is the only zero emissions energy. They block exploration. They fight even clean burning coal plants because it's "coal."

I wish they were just fracking nuts, but they clearly wish to harm the United States. Though in fairness that's the leaders, most of the sheep who vote for them just don't analyze what they are told critically.

of course they do - that is the whole purpose.

therefore our defense includes all the security for the oil we can get.
One has to deal with realities and continue to live.

 

[Vox]

This is the best decision Obama has ever made as President.

Correction...

This is the Best Use of an Escape Hatch After Making a Very Bad Decision that Obama has ever made as President.

All fixed...

but we will give him a pass if he complies with a nay, won't we?

 

[Vox]

But our involvement was absolutely NOT Unconstitutional. Your CLAIM is baseless and pretty ******* stupid.

To add, to become law, according to the Constitution, a bill must pass in both houses. Does that mean that anything that is passed is automatically Constitutional since it passed according to the Constitutional process, or in addition to the bill passing both houses, does the content of the bill also need to be based on an enumerated Federal authority?

YES, it does. Unless it is overturned by SCOTUS.

Ditto declaration of war. Congress declaring war is the Constitutional process, but the content of the declaration must be based on a Federal authority, and the only enumerated Federal authority for the military is to defend the United States.

It did pass BOTH houses - with the majority of dems in Senate approving it ( total 77 yay - 29 out of 50 dems - yay) and 82 of them ( 40%) in the House of Representatives

 

[Contumacious]

It was illegal because it violated the UN Charter.

Nothing the UN did made the war legal or illegal. It was illegal because it violated the Constitution. The powers of the US military were specifically limited to "defense." Defending the American people from foreign governments like the Taliban and Libya is defense. Protecting oil supplies or attacking governments we don't like isn't. The Federal government is by the 10th Amendment prohibited from doing anything it has no authority to do. Securing oil is not an enumerated authority of the Federal government. The UN is irrelevant.

It was absolutely and purely legal and never violated our Constitution - actually everything was done according to the Constitution.

That 's fine . But we don't give about the Israeli Constitution. We are concerned about ours.

.

 

[SherriMunnerlyn]

[/size][/b]

It was illegal because it violated the UN Charter.

Sherri Mudderlyn is all upsetty wetty that the US ratification of the UN charter did not come complete with an abdication of our own sovereignty.

Treaties are the law of the land under the US Constitution. Educate yourself.

 

[Kondor3]

This is the best decision Obama has ever made as President.

Correction...

This is the Best Use of an Escape Hatch After Making a Very Bad Decision that Obama has ever made as President.

All fixed...

but we will give him a pass if he complies with a nay, won't we?

By 'giving him a pass', I presume you mean...

Letting him slide, for publicly drawing Red Lines and Banging the War Drums without getting an accurate 'Read' on NATO and The West and the American People, and then being obliged to climb-down and defer to an Authorization by Congress, as (1) political cover for such strikes or (2) an excuse for not backing up his war-drum banging with action, and being able to blame it on Congress?

Nahhhhhh...

Nobody would ever think such things or reach such logical conclusions, would they?

Even still...

I'm guessing that - by deferring this decision to Congress - that we do NOT end-up intervening... which is probably the lesser of two evils, from the vantage point of our own interests and well-being.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

When you go to war by mistake, what more is there to say? What is worse than starting a war by mistake?

Starting a war by lying is worse.

I don't believe for one moment that Bush made a "mistake."

He lied us into war and everyone knows it.

That's why Obama isn't getting his "oh, the poor Syrians!" war through --- that chicken just came home to roost.

I didn't see you complaining when Obama lied us into Libya, and I don't see you complaining about his lies regarding Syria either. When you start doing that you can begin to have enough credibility to try to make a case that Bush lied.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

False. They were not war resolutions.

How strange, I didn't say they were. I guess that means you are lying.

Then you were being dishonestly vague in replying to care4all.

I'm not surprised.

My response to care4all wasn't vague, you just jumped into the end of it and assumed it was. Which is how you typically respond to anything I say.

 

[Politico]

This is more comical by the minute. Can't wait until it's all over so I can have a huuuge laugh.

 

[Beachboy]

Just for the record, this Hoffstra provided four links to sell pure propaganda stating that the idea of a strong relationship between Israel and the United States was untrue. I debunked all four of his links as propaganda, and provided a history of Israeli/U. S. relations back to the 1960s. Watch out for Hoffstra and his 'world of manufactured reality.' All I can do is put Hoffstra on 'ignore.' Posting against him is a waste time. Speaking as a WASP, Hoffstra looks like and anti-Semite* to me. Since this is the internet, I unable to handle this as I might in real life.

​

*Antisemitism is prejudice, hatred of, or discrimination against Jews for reasons connected to their Jewish heritage. A person who holds such positions is called an "antisemite". It is considered by most scholars to be a form of racism.

Remember how Muslims say "Thank you?"

I remember how Israelis say "thank you".

USS Liberty incident - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jonathan Pollard - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Lawrence Franklin espionage scandal - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Israeli ?art student? mystery - Salon.com

The relationship between the United States and Israel is strong and time tested.

That's pretty funny.

Now, I must ask: who do you work for?

I am a WASP in the communications industry, who knows how to do a mystical thing called "reading."

Here is a link from a highly credible Jewish source that describes the Israeli/United States relationship all the way back to President Kennedy. U.S.-Israel: A Special Alliance | Jewish Virtual Library It is lengthy, but here is the conclusion:

"When we look at the evolution of the alliance, and the current, broad institutionalization of friendship, it is easier to understand why an Israeli election that brought to power a man whose policies clashed with the President's would have so little impact on the relationship. The truth is the differences between the present administrations in Israel and the United States are relatively narrow, primarily disagreements over the means to the same end."

I think the real question here is "What Anti-Israeli group are you posting for?" I provide facts, you are debunked noise.

 

[kaz]

But our involvement was absolutely NOT Unconstitutional. Your CLAIM is baseless and pretty ******* stupid.

To add, to become law, according to the Constitution, a bill must pass in both houses. Does that mean that anything that is passed is automatically Constitutional since it passed according to the Constitutional process, or in addition to the bill passing both houses, does the content of the bill also need to be based on an enumerated Federal authority?

Ditto declaration of war. Congress declaring war is the Constitutional process, but the content of the declaration must be based on a Federal authority, and the only enumerated Federal authority for the military is to defend the United States.

It did pass BOTH houses - with the majority of dems in Senate approving it ( total 77 yay - 29 out of 50 dems - yay) and 82 of them ( 40%) in the House of Representatives

Re-read my post, this doesn't dispute what I said or address the point.

For this and your unsupported claim it was Constitutional in your other posts, what you're not doing is pointing to the Constitutional authority to use the military for anything other than "Defense."

 

[kaz]

To add, to become law, according to the Constitution, a bill must pass in both houses. Does that mean that anything that is passed is automatically Constitutional since it passed according to the Constitutional process, or in addition to the bill passing both houses, does the content of the bill also need to be based on an enumerated Federal authority?

YES, it does. Unless it is overturned by SCOTUS

So government taking land from some citizens and giving it to another citizen is public use (New London), discrimination in favor of blacks for exactly 25 years (O'Conner), regulation of political speech going into elections (so called campaign finance reform), government requiring Americans to buy a product from private companies (Obamacare), government confiscating money and re-distributing it based on the age of a citizen (Social Security) and one person owning another (Dred Scott) and an endless list of government powers granted to government by government are constitutional because 9 dictators in robes voted. Got it.

One question, what are the first three words of the Constitution?

 

[Kondor3]

"...what you're not doing is pointing to the Constitutional authority to use the military for anything other than "Defense."

It never ceases to amaze me, how 'Literalists' continue to try, in this day and age, to drag the government back to a post-Colonial mindset, with respect to War Powers and Standing Armies and Militias and social programming and all the rest.

Constitutional Law, and interpretations of Constitutional Law, are a living, breathing, dynamic, multi-generational and never-ending evolutionary process.

Even the most ardent Minimalists of the Revolutionary Era, could they be temporarily time-warped into the future and brought up to speed on the range of issues and events that led us to where we are now, would, in all likelihood, concede that they were at least somewhat myopic in their original Constitutional Vision, and that 'we' were right to turn their Magnum Opus into an evolutionary process, so that the core of their Vision could remain intact, while continuing to evolve and adapt and remain relevant centuries after it was first tendered.

We have spent the past two centuries and more 'evolving' the Constitution of the United States, and, although we could have done a better job in topical area A or B or C, overall, we've done a damned fine job of keeping both the Letter and the Spirit of the Constitution alive while giving ourselves enough philosophical and legal and operational and practical Elbow Room to continue to grow and to thrive and to survive under the aegis of that Original Work.

It is quite true that 'we' have stretched the interpretation of Part A or B or C of the Constitution damned-near to the breaking point, in some instances, but, in most instances, 'we' have merely stretched the Constitution in order to align it more closely with the Realities of the Times, and, other than some occasional pain-in-the-ass Judicial Activism that manifests itself against the Will of the People, for the most part, that Constitutional Evolutionary Process is righteous and just what is needed.

'We' settled this War Powers business long ago, and tweaked it again, within living memory. Frankly, it could probably use even more work, but I, for one, do not favor a return to the way in which it was perceived in the immediate post-Colonial era.

This is not 1790.

The world, and we, have changed greatly since then.

And we cannot run our country nor interact with the rest of the world not interpret our Constitution as if it was 1790.

That just won't cut it, in the Real World, which is where most of us are obliged to dwell.

 

[kaz]

The world, and we, have changed greatly since then.

And we cannot run our country nor interact with the rest of the world not interpret our Constitution as if it was 1790.

That just won't cut it, in the Real World, which is where most of us are obliged to dwell.

First, the Constitution is not frozen in 1790. In fact, they told us how to update it. 2/3, 2/3 and 3/4. They did not give us 5/9 or just ignore it. There is a process.

However, what has not changed is that our endless involvement in the middle east is doing nothing positive for us. We should be working towards energy independence and we have ample opportunity to do it. We make ourselves the target of terrorists and all we're accomplishing in the meantime is propping up tin pot dictatorships. And the countries that benefit the most from our policy (Euro oil guzzlers and middle east dictators) use our involvement to undercut us.

A great book for understanding how the French and British divided the middle east and how we started the path to policeman to the world is "Paris 1919." It's a long, tedious book to read, but wow, you learn a lot about why the last century evolved the way it is.

I do not oppose wars other than for defense because they said that in 1790, I oppose them because what they said in 1790 is still right today. We should be dominating the world with our great business prowess, not our military prowess. That should be for our defense. And if we would use it for that, we'd have to defend ourselves a lot less.

But your view that we can ignore the Constitution and do differently without following the prescribed process for doing so, 2/3, 2/3 and 3/4 is just wrong. And 5/9 doesn't change that. You want it, change the Constitution, don't ignore it.

 

[Synthaholic]

Iraq did use poison gas during the Iran/Iraq war. Are you suggesting that we should have taken sides with Iran? The same Iran that invaded the US Embassy and held US citizens hostage for months? I don't think so.

How about staying the **** out of it to begin with?

Short of that, how about Reagan letting Saddam know that there would be serious repercussions if he used chemical weapons, instead of actually helping Saddam to achieve his chemical weapons attacks?

Your article of 2013 does not in any way conform to the information put out by the state department a decade ago. Iraq acquired chemical agents after pleading medical necessity for combatting diseases by altering DNA in some microbes. This was presented to the medical side to give the Iraqis full access to microbial agents so they could seek cures for illnesses in their part of the world. The Iraqis were given carte blanche for research and educational purposes is my recollection. They were given full access to what we knew and agents they said they needed to study were given. It was not known by us they would turn these agents against their own people and their neighbors. If we flubbed, it was because of deception in accessing our chemical agents to use as a modus operandi to exterminate people with instead of to cure people. We had no idea they would do that at the time the agreement was made to the best of my knowledge, Synthaholic. I remember reading that blurb. The blame game stuff came later. We now know that full access to medical experimentation should exclude chemical agents that kill. When we found out what was really the objective in this little shell game, we were quite angry, I assure you. It's just that it got spun out of control and is now lamented as intentional on our part. Nothing could be further from true. We were accessed through the Medical Community, and we had no idea it was their War Department making the demands of their physicians to get deadly agents to kill enemies.

It's like 9/11. We really didn't know how thoroughly our strengths and weaknesses were being cased by bin Laden's underlings in AL Qaeda. One agency knew about a few odd reports of Middle Easterners taking flying lessons, then dumping the lessons before learning how to land the planes. It didn't occur to anyone it was anything but a few people dropping out of school. We had no way of connecting the dots that the drop outs dropped out because they were not allowed to learn how to land so their mission would be done, ending in the middle of the World trade Center towers, the Pentagon, and likely other targets around Washington that would wipe our nation of all its leadership.

We're human over here, not the least bit psychic nor clairvoyant.

All we can try to do is to not let the same errors repeat themselves, and to prevent other events that sound like too-crazy-to-consider methods of killing Americans

Well, that's what I think.

I read Madelyn Albright's notes on Iraq. Much of the Bush starting State Department actions were consistent with her writings. Saddam had his finger in every hate-America pie in the Middle East. It was known by Mrs. Albright that he was behind the fortunately unsuccessful assassination plot against President George HW Bush on her watch, but it wasn't known until a full investigation discovered it.

Sadly, we are now smarter.

I wish you had included links to back up anything you are claiming, Becki, because the reporting doesn't confirm this.

 

[bendog]

This reminds me of ...

Pictures & Photos from Blades of Glory - IMDb