All things Middle East related

[over the mountain]

Originally Posted by Chico23231

Anybody care that ISIS is using Chlorine and Mustard Gas against multiple cities within Iraq?

Our president let this happen. Let genocide happen. Remember that folks, remember it.

He was up in arms when Assad did it...haven't heard a word from that pussy in the white house about these attacks.

from 2013 ..

Obama urges military action against Syria but will seek Congress' OK - CNN.com

Obama sent a letter to the heads of the House and Senate on Saturday night, hours after announcing that he believes military action against Syrian targets is the right step to take over the alleged use of chemical weapons.
The proposed legislation from Obama asks Congress to approve the use of military force "to deter, disrupt, prevent and degrade the potential for future uses of chemical weapons or other weapons of mass destruction."
...
In a televised address from the White House Rose Garden earlier Saturday, the president said he would take his case to Congress, not because he has to -- but because he wants to.
"While I believe I have the authority to carry out this military action without specific congressional authorization, I know that the country will be stronger if we take this course, and our actions will be even more effective," he said. "We should have this debate, because the issues are too big for business as usual."
...
Some members of Congress applauded Obama's decision.
House Speaker John Boehner, Majority Leader Eric Cantor, Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy and Conference Chair Cathy McMorris Rodgers issued a statement Saturday praising the president.
"Under the Constitution, the responsibility to declare war lies with Congress," the Republican lawmakers said. "We are glad the president is seeking authorization for any military action in Syria in response to serious, substantive questions being raised."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Since 2013, congress has failed to vote on Pres Obama's AUMF. Seems both parties in congress are to blame.

I read a great article from foxnews this weekend that laid it out pretty clearly (cant find it now) ... republicans dont want to give obama unlimited war powers and democrats want specific limitations on # of troops, concrete twillight language, etc. (as well as ending the 2001 aumf that obama is currently using to bomb isis in syria).

--------------------------------------------------

my short version -- its not Pres Obama fault that our engagement has been limited to air strikes. Its congresses. either way, im glad we are not "boots on the ground". that whole area is a shit show.

ive had trouble harmonizing my thoughts that i value american lives over those non-americans in syria and beyond.

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by over the mountain

from 2013 ..

Obama urges military action against Syria but will seek Congress' OK - CNN.com

Obama sent a letter to the heads of the House and Senate on Saturday night, hours after announcing that he believes military action against Syrian targets is the right step to take over the alleged use of chemical weapons.
The proposed legislation from Obama asks Congress to approve the use of military force "to deter, disrupt, prevent and degrade the potential for future uses of chemical weapons or other weapons of mass destruction."
...
In a televised address from the White House Rose Garden earlier Saturday, the president said he would take his case to Congress, not because he has to -- but because he wants to.
"While I believe I have the authority to carry out this military action without specific congressional authorization, I know that the country will be stronger if we take this course, and our actions will be even more effective," he said. "We should have this debate, because the issues are too big for business as usual."
...
Some members of Congress applauded Obama's decision.
House Speaker John Boehner, Majority Leader Eric Cantor, Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy and Conference Chair Cathy McMorris Rodgers issued a statement Saturday praising the president.
"Under the Constitution, the responsibility to declare war lies with Congress," the Republican lawmakers said. "We are glad the president is seeking authorization for any military action in Syria in response to serious, substantive questions being raised."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Since 2013, congress has failed to vote on Pres Obama's AUMF. Seems both parties in congress are to blame.

I read a great article from foxnews this weekend that laid it out pretty clearly (cant find it now) ... republicans dont want to give obama unlimited war powers and democrats want specific limitations on # of troops, concrete twillight language, etc. (as well as ending the 2001 aumf that obama is currently using to bomb isis in syria).

--------------------------------------------------

my short version -- its not Pres Obama fault that our engagement has been limited to air strikes. Its congresses. either way, im glad we are not "boots on the ground". that whole area is a shit show.

ive had trouble harmonizing my thoughts that i value american lives over those non-americans in syria and beyond.

Yet he starts out by saying he believes he has the authority to take the military action without Congressional approval. You blaming congress for refusing to answer when Obama himself acknowledges he didn't have to ask is the ultimate example of passing off responsibility.

Hold your president accountable.

[over the mountain]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

Yet he starts out by saying he believes he has the authority to take the military action without Congressional approval. You blaming congress for refusing to answer when Obama himself acknowledges he didn't have to ask is the ultimate example of passing off responsibility.

Hold your president accountable.

Could you imagine the daily outrage and calls for impeachment from republicans if Pres Obama did decide to unilaterally put US troops in harms way without the authorization of republican controlled congress? Imagine the feigned rage from o'reilly and cruz and mccain's blow hard wife every time a service member died -- "there is dead american blood on the president's hands!!" ... words like treason would be used.

Are republicans actually trying to spin this back at the Pres by saying he should have just violated the Constitution?

Wow.

maybe republicans should have put partisan politics to the side for once and worked with the Pres on this one.

[Chico23231]

Originally Posted by over the mountain

Could you imagine the daily outrage and calls for impeachment from republicans if Pres Obama did decide to unilaterally put US troops in harms way without the authorization of republican controlled congress? Imagine the feigned rage from o'reilly and cruz and mccain's blow hard wife every time a service member died -- "there is dead american blood on the president's hands!!" ... words like treason would be used.

Are republicans actually trying to spin this back at the Pres by saying he should have just violated the Constitution?

Wow.

maybe republicans should have put partisan politics to the side for once and worked with the Pres on this one.

Aside from military force...what about just leadership from the highest position in the land? give me a break....Obama been a disaster with the Ukraine, Syria, Iraq, Israel, Iran, Russia.

Look around the world, hello, its on fire...your satisfied with his leadership?



This Cuba thing makes no sense...Fidel Castro to Obama: 'We don't need the empire to give us anything'

Its hilarity at its finest. Cuba is punking Obama now.

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by over the mountain

Could you imagine the daily outrage and calls for impeachment from republicans if Pres Obama did decide to unilaterally put US troops in harms way without the authorization of republican controlled congress? Imagine the feigned rage from o'reilly and cruz and mccain's blow hard wife every time a service member died -- "there is dead american blood on the president's hands!!" ... words like treason would be used.

Are republicans actually trying to spin this back at the Pres by saying he should have just violated the Constitution?

Wow.

maybe republicans should have put partisan politics to the side for once and worked with the Pres on this one.

And if they did they'd be a disgrace. But that's neither here nor there. Fact of the matter is Obama doesn't need Congressional approval on this because the US isn't declaring war on another nation state. He doesn't need congressional approval for military action against terrorists.

[over the mountain]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

And if they did they'd be a disgrace. But that's neither here nor there. Fact of the matter is Obama doesn't need Congressional approval on this because the US isn't declaring war on another nation state. He doesn't need congressional approval for military action against terrorists.

He was trying to get congressional approval for military action against Syria. Assad used chemical weapons on August 21, 2013. Less than 10 days later, Pres Obama sent his AUMF to congress re Assad and Syria. Republican controlled congress never voted on it or come up w their own proposal.

No way the Pres could have used the 9/11 AUMF to justify averting the US Constitution mandated congressional approval for a declaration of war and unilaterally authorize military action against the country of Syria.

Maybe he could have played word games and called syria terrorists and missile attacks on another country's army not a "declaration of war" (even though the AUMF allowed for boots on the ground) ... imagine how well that would have gone over w the o'reilly and cruz' of the world.

With the current political climate and the grid lock of a dem Pres and a repub congress ... damned if you, damned if you dont for both sides.

eff it - trump2016