Perhaps it was just a courtesy...aka...greasing a squeaky wheel. lol
Sorry, but no one buys the " signing statement " mitigation.
Obama just "apologized" to top ranking Committee members for not informing them.
I'm curious as to why he felt they needed a apology.
He didn't do anything wrong, did he ?
Have the Taliban ever attacked the US or it's interests outside of Afghanistan? Is it possible that the only reason they are fighting the US is because we're in their country?
Is it possible that the only reason we're in their country in the first place is because they gave Al Qaeda a place to set up their base of operation and then refused to turn them over after 9-11?Have the Taliban ever attacked the US or it's interests outside of Afghanistan? Is it possible that the only reason they are fighting the US is because we're in their country?
Sure, Moot.
The President broke the law. To be fair, it probably wasn't on purpose.
Why are you ignoring the SCOTUS ruling in INS v. Chadha (1983) that said it was unconstitutional for congress to put conditions on the executive branch without a bicameralism and presentment from both houses of congress? Legislating that the president must give a congressional committee a 30 day notice and then wait to get their approval before he can execute a law was ruled unconstitutional and violation of the separation of power in 1983. Therefore, the president did not break the law...congress did by passing an unconstitutional law.
But Al Qaeda is hiding in Pakistan now and they too have refused to turn the terrorists over. And yet, we aren't fighting the Pakistanis so why are we still fighting the Taliban?Is it possible that the only reason we're in their country in the first place is because they gave Al Qaeda a place to set up their base of operation and then refused to turn them over after 9-11?
On the contrary. A law passed by Congress and signed by the President is the law of the land until the Judiciary finds it unconstitutional. The Judiciary, not an internet poster named Moot.
Which is why the White House already admitted that they were wrong and apologized.But you keep right on with the inanity.
http://www.justice.gov/olc/opiniondocs/presidential-signing-stmt.pdf"....A President that places the statutory law over the constitutional law in this instance would fail in his duty faithfully to execute the laws. The principle is equally sound where the Supreme Court has yet to rule on an issue, but the President has determined that a statutory law violates the Constitution.
To say that the principle is not equally sound in this context is to deny the President's independent responsibility to interpret and uphold the Constitution. It is to leave the defense of the Constitution only to two, not three, of the branches of our government. See United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 U.S. 259, 274 (1990) (“The Members of the Executive and Legislative Branches are sworn to uphold the Constitution, and they presumably desire to follow its commands.”); Webster v. Doe, 486 U.S. 592, 613 (1988) (Scalia, J., dissenting) (“Members of Congress and the supervising officers of the Executive Branch take the same oath to uphold the Constitution that we do . . . .”).
I was listening to a radio commentary while driving a couple of hours ago and the talk show host--I didn't catch his name--said the jury was out on whether Bergdahl had deserted and we should be very careful not to impune the name of a uniformed member of the armed services without knowing about that for sure.
But some 50 of our soldiers were killed when out looking for Bergdahl--the level of violence escalated greatly in the months following his capture. His father mentioned he was more comfortable talking in Pashto than in English, but that could be lack of contact with any English speakers for the past five years. The five guys traded for his release were top Taliban leaders and had been classified extremely dangerous.
And yes, that certainly would appear to be encouragement for Islamic terrorists to look for more people to kidnap and hold for ransom.
And I can't shake the feeling too that Obama was almost desperate for something--ANYTHING--to get the VA and Benghazi scandals off the front pages. He had tried almost everything in his arsenal without success. But Bergdahl's release accomplished that.
But Al Qaeda is hiding in Pakistan now and they too have refused to turn the terrorists over. And yet, we aren't fighting the Pakistanis so why are we still fighting the Taliban?
Another poster a little loose and fancy free with facts.... hey, why let a few facts get in the way of a good argument....
The number is 6, not 50 and even that claim is dubious...
Pentagon to review claims US soldiers killed during search for Bergdahl | Fox News
I do agree that Obama would like to do a head fake away from the one legitimate scandal of his administration. On the other hand, no point in head faking away from the Republican circus of creating scandals and not letting go of them. The Cons are just shooting themselves in the foot with those practices... might as well let them have center stage as headliners at the comedy club.
I was listening to a radio commentary while driving a couple of hours ago and the talk show host--I didn't catch his name--said the jury was out on whether Bergdahl had deserted and we should be very careful not to impune the name of a uniformed member of the armed services without knowing about that for sure.
the level of violence escalated greatly in the months following his capture. His father mentioned he was more comfortable talking in Pashto than in English, but that could be lack of contact with any English speakers for the past five years. The five guys traded for his release were top Taliban leaders and had been classified extremely dangerous.But some 50 of our soldiers were killed when out looking for Bergdahl--
And yes, that certainly would appear to be encouragement for Islamic terrorists to look for more people to kidnap and hold for ransom.
And I can't shake the feeling too that Obama was almost desperate for something--ANYTHING--to get the VA and Benghazi scandals off the front pages. He had tried almost everything in his arsenal without success. But Bergdahl's release accomplished that.
On a side-note, the soldiers in Bergdahl's platoon sound like a bunch of unprofessional right-wing jerks. Maybe that's why they're collaborating with Republican strategists to tar and feather Bergdahl before his feet touch American soil.
I wonder what really went on in that platoon. I hear there was a breakdown in the chain of command.
"Unprofessional right-wing jerks"?
They're collaborating with Republican strategists? Of course you have a link to back that up.
Whether or not he's officially a Republican, he is in the employ of the Republicans. Ergo, a Republican strategist.
I don't know whether to laugh or cry at this partisanship.
Don't keep me in suspense.
Okay, I laughed at it, even though it's pretty sad.
Maybe Bush is behind it?
Nope. I don't even think it was originally political.
Sure it was. It's the Republicans behind it. You said so yourself.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?