I wish it weren't so, but this is blatant dishonesty on the part of the Administration

[cali]

in order to get around the prohibition of launching a war (yes, lobbing missiles at another country absent an attack or plans of an attack on the U.S. or its territories is an act of war prohibited by the war powers act)

Here is the lie:

<snip>

In a sign that Obama believes he has the legal authority, independently of Congress, to launch a strike, Carney said that allowing the chemical weapons attack to go unanswered would be a "threat to the United States".

<snip>

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/27/syria-us-forces-ready-obama

[tk2kewl]

1. "But we don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud" now do we

[Civilization2]

17. Known unknowns,. . we know where the WMDs are?

[Dash87]

2. The US's proposed response is a threat to the US

We're allying with Al Qaeda and helping them gain access to nerve gas. It's mind-numbingly stupid.

[n2doc]

3. It's legal if the President does it

Seems to be back in vogue these days.

[heaven05]

66. yeah

every since 2000

[PoliticAverse]

4. Video of the question to Carney...

[AnotherMcIntosh]

15. Is he a Republican?

How can we tell anymore?

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

106. I feel like I have passed through a timewarp.

I feel 10 years younger too! Same shit is going on as well. Different players, same shit.

Do I have time to invest in Enron and dump it at the last moment?

[G_j]

19. sickening

like W never left

[blackspade]

100. How does Carney sleep at night?

The double speak is painful.

[Scuba]

5. The biggest threat to the security of the United States is our defense budget.

[JDPriestly]

30. +1000

[rhett o rick]

75. Agree. nm

[Faryn Balyncd]

6. Carney's "reasoning" is lame bullshit, an insult to all Americans.

[cali]

7. yeah, just watched the posted clip

godfuckin'awful pile of shit.

[840high]

9. +100

[leftstreet]

28. +1

[Zorra]

8. "threat to the United States" is a broad and ambiguous concept, and some people,

lawyers and politicians in particular, are often very adept at using weaselspeak.

[RC]

22. "threat to the United States" means oil is involved somehow.

[librechik]

29. +++++++++++

[Laelth]

35. I'd have more respect for the Administration if it would admit to this truth.

Of course, "the truth" is out of vogue in politics and has been for a long time.

-Laelth

[jberryhill]

56. Or a belief that persons such as Kim Jong Un are taking note of what we do

[NealK]

101. +1000

[Bluenorthwest]

10. Condaliza Carney

Great guy.

[truebluegreen]

11. What a pile of BS.

[Yo_Mama]

12. And CO2 is a threat to the world and the US, so next we'll bomb China?

To knock out some of their coal usage?

You can justify anything that way. I am having a crisis of confidence in my government.

[NorthCarolina]

25. Not likely since combatting CO2 emissions would pose an even greater threat

($$$) to the corporations that spew it into the atmosphere.

[Yo_Mama]

51. Yeeeeeeeesss

something about the thought process behind these determinations has not been fully explained to the public.

[obxhead]

72. CO2 is a far greater threat at that.

Syria doesn't have weapon systems capable of striking the US

[Yo_Mama]

74. True, true. n/t

[Demeter]

13. Same shit, different day

[Mojorabbit]

70. +100 nt

[Arctic Dave]

16. Same playbook bush used.

But you're a hater if you say that.

[avaistheone1]

18. Different boss, same playbook.

It sucks.

[suffragette]

20. Blatant dishonesty and attempting to minimize the gulf between candidate Obama and President Obama's

Differing views and actions.
Again.

[sabrina 1]

27. That is so true. Eg, I remember a reporter asking Obama what he thought about Humanitarian

Intervention by the US a few years ago when he was a candidate. He said he opposed it and provided his reasoning for this position.

These comments from Carney completely contradict his pre-election position on this issue.

[truedelphi]

76. I guess, like Bill Hicks so cleverly guessed those many years before,

That once elected President, a man has to choose between being on some puppet strings or being in a coffin.

[sabrina 1]

83. I'm beginning to think that may be the case. Nothing else explains the complete flip flops

on so many major issues.

[BrotherIvan]

85. I can think of another explanation

And it rhymes with lying.

[suffragette]

98. I guess we should be used to it by now.

Still bothers me each time, though.

[TBF]

21. Honestly at this point I'm surprised they tell us anything at all -

it's not like they are going to stop what they are planning. And heaven help you if you disagree or release any information .. your ass will be sitting in jail the next 40 years.

[flpoljunkie]

23. My reaction, as well.

Utter bullshit!

[JayhawkSD]

24. Well then, we need to bomb Japan, too

Because their Fukushima reactors, and their feckless manner of dealing with them, represents a "clear and immanent danger" to the United States. Unfortunately, my nephew and his wife are stationed in Tokyo, so let's wait until his tour of duty is over and he comes back home.

[tblue]

50. We need to bomb the Pacific Ocean

for bringing us radioactive fish.

[woo me with science]

26. Obscene lies.

Thank you.

[exboyfil]

31. We our out of our minds

We voted for this guy????

[LuvNewcastle]

73. What can you do when they lie to you?

Seriously. When a candidate says things you agree with when he's running, and then does the opposite when he gets in office, what can you do? You can't have a democratic system when you have liars running for office. We currently have no way to deal with candidates who do that. Impeachment isn't for people who lie; it's for criminals. As far as I know, there is no law against lying in a campaign or to make officials keep their promises. Until we have some legal remedy to prevent liars from running our government, I suppose this is what we're stuck with.

[Flying Squirrel]

78. It should be possible to hold a Recall Election for President

Just like Governors. Impeachment should not be the only option.

[TreasonousBastard]

32. You had to go to the Guardian to find out about a press conference? But...

be that as it may, the President has complied with the War Powers Act and notified Congress. Even Republicans agree to that.

Is it a good idea? That can be debated, but nothing will be decided here-- the simple truth is that nobody here is privy to whatever it is that the Administration knows. Even if reading the Guardian.

[cali]

33. no. notifying Congress is NOT enough.

it does not comply withe the requirements of the War Powers Act, thus Carney's remarks.

Please stop with the false assertions on this.

[TreasonousBastard]

34. Congress seems to think it has...

http://hereandnow.wbur.org/2013/08/27/bob-corker-syria

Please stop making your own baseless assertions.

[Laelth]

38. Senator Corker's opinion on the subject is not determinative.

Senator Corker does not get to decide whether or not the President's actions comply with the War Powers Act. I do appreciate his opinion on the subject, though I note he did not address that question directly, but his opinion, even if he were to offer it, is not binding and is not "the law."



-Laelth

[cali]

39. shame on you. Bob Corker is ONE senator

not as you falsely claim "Congress". And he's one asswipe right winger. Congrats on using him as your authority.

The reason that Carney used the language he did is to contravene the WPA.

stop making shit up and using wingnuts to back your false contentions.

thank you.

[totodeinhere]

47. And even Corker in the article didn't say that Obama has complied with the War Powers Act. n/t

[TreasonousBastard]

58. ...

Corker said President Obama has been given several options for military intervention, and is still considering them. He hopes the president will seek authorization from Congress before acting, but notes that it’s not required under the War Powers Act.

[totodeinhere]

62. I stand corrected on that specific point but the rest of my argument remians valid.

It's just one senator's opinion and I have already shown that other members of Congress such as Senator Murphy are advocating congressional approval..

[TreasonousBastard]

60. Corker is the top Republican on the Foreign Relations Committee...

and would have some sense of what is going on before opening his mouth.

[Laelth]

40. I would also add that Representative Kucinich thinks differently on this subject.

"Kucinich also said President Obama would be violating the Constitution if he doesn't get congressional approval before taking any military action in Syria."

http://thehill.com/blogs/global-affairs/middle-east-north-africa/319037-kucinich-syria-strike-will-turn-us-into-al-qaedas-air-force

My instinct is to trust Dennis Kucinich over Bob Corker. To each one's own, I suppose.

-Laelth

[TreasonousBastard]

59. I don't like Corker much, either, but Kucinich has no say in this whatever.

[sabrina 1]

68. Kucinich earned the right to 'have a say' in these matters by the fact that he was RIGHT

on Iraq when most of our leaders turned out to be wrong.

I give credibility to those who have a record of being CORRECT on matters as important as than rather than those who were so spectacularly WRONG.

[Volaris]

84. I would like to offer up for disection the following idea...

Being WRONG about Iraq is what put us in this mess in the first place.

If we hadn't wasted 4-6 Presidential Terms worth of domestic political capitol (not to mention a GENERATION of world-wide Goodwill) in the utterly INSANE decision to invade Iraq, Assad would likely be dead already.

This argument of our inability to muster the national will to remove this man from power (and the regional consequences if we DO manage that feat and then REQUIRE our President to act on that decision) belong SQUARELY AND COMPLETLEY at the feet of George Bush Jr., that bloodsucker Cheney, and EVERY NAME ASSOCIATED with PNAC.

This is still their fault, and I'm not inclined to let them off the hook so easily by blaming Obama for wanting to act on the idea that Assad might actually have gassed his own poeple (I want PROOF, by the way, by way of the UN inspector's report, and then I want that report triple checked by the international commnity. If he DID fire chemical weapons into his own city, it's not like he's going to disappear in 10 days time and we will have missed our window to "get him", as it were).

[totodeinhere]

44. There in nothing in the article you linked to that indicates that

"Congress seems to think it has." It was an interview with one Republican who was only speaking for himself and not the entire Congress. And nowhere in the article was Corker quoted as saying that he thought that Obama had complied with the War Powers Act.

But there are others in Congress who have specifically called for Obama to get the authorization of Congress.

U.S. Sen. Christopher Murphy, D-Conn., spoke out Tuesday against the prospect of U.S. air strikes on Syrian military targets following reports that the country’s leader used chemical weapons against his own people. He also called on the Obama administration to seek congressional authorization before taking any action.

http://www.myrecordjournal.com/southington/southingtonnews/2211570-129/murphy-esty-urge-cautious-response-to-attacks-in-syria.html

[TreasonousBastard]

57. Well...

"Corker said President Obama has been given several options for military intervention, and is still considering them. He hopes the president will seek authorization from Congress before acting, but notes that it’s not required under the War Powers Act."

[bobduca]

48. Baseless? Project much tb?

"Congress" does not equal one war mongering (R) Senator....

But of course you knew you were conflating that, and making a baseless claim yourself.

[TreasonousBastard]

55. He's the top republican on one committee that will have a say...

and would you have any countering opinions?

[bobduca]

71. Still hasn't happened then, has it? Or is verb tense a foreign concept to you?

[sabrina 1]

41. Since when does the President 'notify' Congress before making a decision about

sending the military into action?

I KNOW Bush believed he was a 'Unitary Executive' who had the powers of a king.

Were you supportive of Bush's philosophy of the power of the Executive over Congress? AIRC, we railed against his abuse of power, his disrespect for Congress and the UN.

I don't know, what your position on this issue of the Power of the Executive Branch being MORE than the power of Congress was back then.

But there are Constitutional Requirements when this country is even contemplating war.

And they need to be observed.

Otherwise consider what would happen if, say, Lynn Cheney was president but we had succeeded in electing a great Progressive Congress who could reign in an out of control Executive Branch if need be. And she simply 'notified' them rather than follow the rules as outlined in the Constitution, when she decided to invade some country or another.

Is that what you want?

[TreasonousBastard]

53. Read the War Powers Act

[jberryhill]

54. It's called the "War Powers Act"

Which Congress approved and can repeal or modify at any time.

To some extent, it provides any president with a time limited blank check.

[sabrina 1]

63. I'm familiar with the War Powers Act. I haven't seen anything there that doesn't require

that the President 'consult' with Congress whenever US troops are to be deployed. Nor do I see anything about 'humanitarian interventions'.

Considering how Bush abused his powers, maybe it is time to repeal or modify it.

[jberryhill]

67. "maybe it is time to repeal or modify it"

I agree. It, like many other things, needs to be revisited and revised from time to time. Until that happens, it is what it is.

[underthematrix]

95. Nope. What I want is to read the same daily classified intelligence briefings

the President gets. Oh right. No can do because I don't have . . . what is it? Oh yeah TOP SECRET CLEARANCE.

[sabrina 1]

107. Are you a member of Congress? I don't recall seeing anyone OTHER THAN

members of Congress asking that Congress be consulted before the country goes to war. And no, the War Powers Act does not give the Executive Branch a blank check to go to war. It is very specific about under what circumstances the President can rush to war without their being informed and voting on it.

Of course if you are one of those people who believes we don't need Congress at all, despite the fact that they represent us and without their input, we are not represented, then ignore everything I just said. I will continue to support the balance of powers, as anything else is unthinkable so long as we are a democracy.

[morningfog]

108. Without the UN it will be an illegal war.

On other words a war crime.

[arcane1]

36. "threat to the United States"??? Syria has ICBMs with chemical warheads?

That's news to me!

I'll go one step further: it's a fear-mongering LIE!

[deutsey]

37. Syria is where Saddam hid the WMDs!!1!!11

[Union Scribe]

92. I no shit saw someone say that on Twitter. nt

[totodeinhere]

49. Yup, that so-called "threat to the United States" is no more a real threat

than Saddam's WMD's were. It's very disappointing to see a Democratic administration telling the same types of lies that Bush told.

[Ocelot]

42. Same shit, different President

Syria is a zero threat to the United States and 91% of the American people know this. But the revelations of NSA spying are a threat to Obama and his cronies, the private contractors. This is wagging the dog, and it's going to end the Obama Presidency in a disgraceful quagmire, as well as handing Congress and the White House to the Republicans in 2016.

[forestpath]

69. +1

[christx30]

45. Of course they have to go to war.

If they didn't, all the tax money we have would pile up. And people might start demanding that money be spent on stupid stuff like healthcare or education or infrastructure. We can't have that. Gotta use that money to bomb the hell out of people on another continent. That's all money is good for.

[AgingAmerican]

46. It's the Qaedas!

You see if we don't get Syria the Qaedas will get the weapons. Gotta stop the Qaedas.

[democrank]

52. Shrub must be one excited war criminal today.

And CNN is probably scambling to resurrect those old shock and awe graphics. I don`t even want to think about what Cheney`s doing, but I`m sure he supports this attack 100%, along with the other PNAC Patriots who still pretty much still have their way.

[Puzzledtraveller]

61. Deja vu.

What year is it?

[David__77]

64. Moveon should run an ad about this.

Seriously, the Democrats need to be saved from themselves. You know that the GOP has their core that isn't afraid to ensure their principles are maintained. Democrats don't have that.

[truedelphi]

79. Oh you know and I know what Moveon's ad would say:

Our nation is about to go to war again. Won't this war be so much better (and so much more swesome) since it is not being conducted by George Dubya, but is instead being run by intelligent people like Obama, Clinton and Kerry!

(Oh and would you send us at Moveon some more money so we can continue to send out this tripe?)

[L0oniX]

65. The REAL "threat to the United States" IS COMING FROM WITHIN, not from some other country. N/T

[Phlem]

81. I used to say that during the Bush era.

It's gotten me this far.


We need a war on ignorance! That too will destroy our country.

-p

peace

[sandpan]

77. All I've done this morning is cry.

Not again, we can’t be going to war. Please someone make them stop. I spent more time making the decision to replace my sewer line than this administration spent on their decision to bomb Syria. I feel powerless. How can we make Obama wake up?

[Phlem]

80. oh he's been awake the whole time, unfortunately.

Welcome to DU BTW.



-p

[summer-hazz]

93. Welcome to DU sandpan!!!!

Wish I knew the answer to that question you asked..

[Maedhros]

82. Have to tip my hat to the Oregon Democrats

http://www.oregonlive.com/mapes/index.ssf/2013/08/oregon_democratic_representati.html#incart_m-rpt-2

Reps. Earl Blumenauer, Peter DeFazio and Kurt Schrader joined more than 100 members of Congress in signing a letter stating that the president should receive congressional authorization before attacking Syria. The Obama administration has signaled that it is weighing military strikes against the country after concluding that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad used chemical weapons against his foes.

Alone among the Oregon Democrats in the House, Rep. Suzanne Bonamici didn't buy into the argument that the president is constitutionally required to consult with Congress. Instead, she signed another letter circulated by Rep. Barbara Lee, D-Calif., that asks Obama to “seek an affirmative decision of Congress prior to committing any U.S. military engagement to this complex crisis.”

On another note, go click on the link and look at the photo accompanying the story: it's of a young Syrian child being treated (presumably) for sarin exposure. It's interesting that when the government is trying to gin up a war on Syria, we get photos of suffering children to justify it.

However, when we read stories of drone strikes in Yemen or Pakistan we get stock photos of Predators - no photos of dismembered Yemeni schoolchildren or Pakistani grandmothers.

[jsr]

86. Spreading freedom to the darkest corners of the world

as usual.

[Bonobo]

87. Yep, that's pretty weasely if not downright scummy. nt

[grahamhgreen]

88. Nice catch. These people are disgusting.

[Buenaventura]

89. Bombs and missiles are invariably followed ...

by boots on the ground. Of course each one of those expensive bombs and missiles represent huge profit for the MIC - Obama's handlers ... Masters of war.

[Doctor_J]

90. waiting for the spinners to show up and tell us how this is really different

than when Bush did it. Why doesn't Obama just change parties and get it over with?

[summer-hazz]

96. My thoughts exactly Doctor_J!

We shouldn't be surprised though. He has surrounded himself with R's who are most
likely telling him what to do and how to do it.
Didn't he just get that woman, (can't remember her name)
from the Bush war clan? The one who vacayed with him recently?

What should we expect from a "Centrist, Third Way, New
Progressive Democrat?

Watch out, apparently it's a done deal for 2016 with HC too!

I saw someone post she is Obama in a skirt.

We are being compounded daily by this administration
and I worked so hard to get him elected. sigh

[Amonester]

91. Someone wise should tell Carney that blowing up the price of gas

(it closed at $112/brl today, going up, up, up) tcould crush the economy

He then should tell it to the President's warmonging advisors...

[Poll_Blind]

94. This administration is the grift that keeps on giving. Pure Bush-era legal circumlocution. nt

PB

[blkmusclmachine]

97. But there's MONEY to be made in blowing up Syria, dammit!

[blackspade]

99. Attacking Syria is just a bad idea.

The justifications for it stink.

[Clear Blue Sky]

102. Deja vu all over again. Bush et al and Iraq. Funny how history repeats itself...nt

[toby jo]

103. You do whatever you want, O. Anybody that can go from a community organizer to senator to

president should be allowed to make war on other countries. It follows, eh?

[NealK]

104. K&R

[Flora]

105. I just don't understand..

If we decided to fire missiles into Syria as punishment for the use of WMDs, will we be part of a UN coalition or will we be acting alone? It just seems that if alone, it's an act of war to fire upon another country but as part of a UN backed attack, it would seem to have more authority. I just can't wrap my head around the idea that the USA has an independent right to fire upon another nation as a form of punishment..