General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsI wish it weren't so, but this is blatant dishonesty on the part of the Administration
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
(18,133 posts)Civilization2
(649 posts)Dash87
(3,220 posts)We're allying with Al Qaeda and helping them gain access to nerve gas. It's mind-numbingly stupid.
n2doc
(47,953 posts)Seems to be back in vogue these days.
every since 2000
PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)AnotherMcIntosh
(11,064 posts)How can we tell anymore?
R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)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
(40,366 posts)like W never left
blackspade
(10,056 posts)The double speak is painful.
Scuba
(53,475 posts)rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)Faryn Balyncd
(5,125 posts)cali
(114,904 posts)godfuckin'awful pile of shit.
840high
(17,196 posts)leftstreet
(36,097 posts)Zorra
(27,670 posts)lawyers and politicians in particular, are often very adept at using weaselspeak.
RC
(25,592 posts)librechik
(30,673 posts)Laelth
(32,017 posts)Of course, "the truth" is out of vogue in politics and has been for a long time.
-Laelth
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)Great guy.
truebluegreen
(9,033 posts)Response to truebluegreen (Reply #11)
cali This message was self-deleted by its author.
Yo_Mama
(8,303 posts)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
(11,197 posts)($$$) to the corporations that spew it into the atmosphere.
Yo_Mama
(8,303 posts)something about the thought process behind these determinations has not been fully explained to the public.
obxhead
(8,434 posts)Syria doesn't have weapon systems capable of striking the US
Yo_Mama
(8,303 posts)Demeter
(85,373 posts)Mojorabbit
(16,020 posts)Arctic Dave
(13,812 posts)But you're a hater if you say that.
avaistheone1
(14,626 posts)It sucks.
suffragette
(12,232 posts)Differing views and actions.
Again.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)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
(32,324 posts)That once elected President, a man has to choose between being on some puppet strings or being in a coffin.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)on so many major issues.
BrotherIvan
(9,126 posts)And it rhymes with lying.
suffragette
(12,232 posts)Still bothers me each time, though.
TBF
(32,000 posts)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
(26,184 posts)Utter bullshit!
JayhawkSD
(3,163 posts)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
(16,350 posts)for bringing us radioactive fish.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)Thank you.
exboyfil
(17,862 posts)We voted for this guy????
LuvNewcastle
(16,834 posts)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
(3,041 posts)Just like Governors. Impeachment should not be the only option.
TreasonousBastard
(43,049 posts)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
(114,904 posts)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
(43,049 posts)Please stop making your own baseless assertions.
Laelth
(32,017 posts)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
(114,904 posts)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
(13,056 posts)TreasonousBastard
(43,049 posts)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 its not required under the War Powers Act.
totodeinhere
(13,056 posts)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
(43,049 posts)and would have some sense of what is going on before opening his mouth.
Laelth
(32,017 posts)"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
(43,049 posts)sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)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
(10,266 posts)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
(13,056 posts)"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.
http://www.myrecordjournal.com/southington/southingtonnews/2211570-129/murphy-esty-urge-cautious-response-to-attacks-in-syria.html
TreasonousBastard
(43,049 posts)"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 its not required under the War Powers Act."
bobduca
(1,763 posts)"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
(43,049 posts)and would you have any countering opinions?
bobduca
(1,763 posts)sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)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
(43,049 posts)jberryhill
(62,444 posts)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
(62,325 posts)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
(62,444 posts)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
(5,811 posts)the President gets. Oh right. No can do because I don't have . . . what is it? Oh yeah TOP SECRET CLEARANCE.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)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
(18,115 posts)On other words a war crime.
arcane1
(38,613 posts)That's news to me!
I'll go one step further: it's a fear-mongering LIE!
deutsey
(20,166 posts)Union Scribe
(7,099 posts)totodeinhere
(13,056 posts)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
(227 posts)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.
Response to cali (Original post)
Name removed Message auto-removed
christx30
(6,241 posts)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
(12,958 posts)You see if we don't get Syria the Qaedas will get the weapons. Gotta stop the Qaedas.
democrank
(11,084 posts)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
(5,937 posts)What year is it?
David__77
(23,311 posts)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
(32,324 posts)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
(31,493 posts)Phlem
(6,323 posts)It's gotten me this far.
We need a war on ignorance! That too will destroy our country.
-p
peace
sandpan
(34 posts)Not again, we cant 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
(6,323 posts)Welcome to DU BTW.
-p
summer-hazz
(112 posts)Wish I knew the answer to that question you asked..
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)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
(7,712 posts)as usual.
Bonobo
(29,257 posts)grahamhgreen
(15,741 posts)Buenaventura
(364 posts)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
(36,392 posts)than when Bush did it. Why doesn't Obama just change parties and get it over with?
summer-hazz
(112 posts)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
(11,541 posts)(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
(23,864 posts)PB
blkmusclmachine
(16,149 posts)blackspade
(10,056 posts)The justifications for it stink.
Clear Blue Sky
(2,156 posts)toby jo
(1,269 posts)president should be allowed to make war on other countries. It follows, eh?
Flora
(126 posts)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..