Obama considers unilateral Syria response

[zimmer]

President Barack Obama is preparing for the possibility of launching unilateral American military action against Syria within days, White House aides say.

Obama considers unilateral Syria response - World - CBC News

What a difference a year makes... and I wonder if we will have the hair-a-fire Leftists taking Obama to task.
Where is the coalition?
Where is UN approval?
Where is approval from Congress?

This guy is a walking, talking Saturday Night Live skit, and you don't have to twist what he says... as they did with Sarah Palin.

Does anyone think Palin wouldn't be 10-times the president of this Amateur?

Despite George W. Bush enlisting a coalition of 49 countries, including America’s greatest military ally Great Britain, for his 2003 invasion of Iraq, he was repeatedly derided by the media and Democrats for acting unilaterally.

Read more: Obama in '12: 'Mistake' to take unilateral action in Syria | The Daily Caller
​

[h=1]Obama in 2012: Taking ‘military action unilaterally’ in Syria would be ‘mistake’[/h]

Obama was elected president in 2008 promising a new era of multilateralism and cooperation with the world. Just last year he said “unilateral” action in Syria would be “a mistake.”
“For us to take military action unilaterally, as some have suggested, or to think that somehow that there is some simple solution, I think is a mistake,” he said while taking questions from the press in March 2012.

Read more: Obama in '12: 'Mistake' to take unilateral action in Syria | The Daily Caller
​

​

 

[RDS]

We are getting a lot of broken records on Syria.

 

[Torrent]

What a difference a year makes... and I wonder if we will have the hair-a-fire Leftists taking Obama to task.
Where is the coalition?
Where is UN approval?
Where is approval from Congress?

This guy is a walking, talking Saturday Night Live skit, and you don't have to twist what he says... as they did with Sarah Palin.

Does anyone think Palin wouldn't be 10-times the president of this Amateur?

I don't like the guy but I see he's kinda in a Darned if I do Darned if I don't. With no really good anwers. He's made a bunch of "red lines" and each time Syria has crossed them. So it looks like he can't enforce any threats he makes, makeing the US look like a Paper Tiger.

On other hand our "allies" don't want to have anything to do with "military action in syria" and our "enemys" are all saying "We will be 'forced to act' if you attack our firend" so it looks like hes another "cowboy" president if he dose act.

Its either Cowboy or Coward. No matter what happens he will be called one or the other.

On the other other hand He's the one who put himself in the tough spot to start with.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Not only did Bush get 49 other nations to support him, 69% of the House of Representatives voted YES passing a bill authorizing use of force, along with 77% of the senate.

 

[Imnukingfutz]

While the tail is wagging the dog and all eyes are turned to Syria and whether or not the Obama Admin. will use military strikes, I wonder what we are overlooking...what is our government getting away with while we are all distracted with the Syria situation?

On the Syria note;
We dont know who set off the chemical weapons, after all it could have been a fringe group from outside Syria
We dont know what chemical weapons were used

Using Biden's own words, if the President uses military action without Congressional approval, it is an impeachable offense. Joe Biden Warned In 2007 That He'd Impeach Bush For Waging War Without Congressional Approval

BIDEN: "I am not one, who if you've observed me for some time, I am not one who's engaged in excessive populist rhetoric. I'm not one that pits the rich against the poor. I'm not one who's gone out there and made false threats against presidents about, and god love him he's a great guy, I'm not Dennis Kucinich saying impeach everybody now. But let me tell you, I have written an extensive legal memorandum with the help of a group of legal scholars who are sort of a stable of people, the best-known constitutional scholars in America, because for 17 years I was chairman of the Judiciary Committee.
"I asked them to put together [for] me a draft, which I'm now literally riding between towns editing, that I want to make clear and submit to the Untied States Senate pointing out the president has no authority to unilaterally attack Iran. And I want to make it clear, I want it on the record, and I want to make it clear, if he does, as chairman of the foreign relations committee and former chair of the judiciary committee, I will move to impeach him."

or even then-Senator Obama's words - Candidate Obama vs. President Obama On The Use Of Military Force

The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.
As Commander-in-Chief, the President does have a duty to protect and defend the United States. In instances of self-defense, the President would be within his constitutional authority to act before advising Congress or seeking its consent. History has shown us time and again, however, that military action is most successful when it is authorized and supported by the Legislative branch. It is always preferable to have the informed consent of Congress prior to any military action.

I really hope they do not attempt to bomb Syria, we can not afford it...both financially and physically.

But I have been reading around the net (I know, real reliable source) that the US needs a new war to dig itself out of the financial mess it is in.

 

[DDD]

But I have been reading around the net (I know, real reliable source) that the US needs a new war to dig itself out of the financial mess it is in.

I am for Syrian intervention. But would not that dig the US even to greater debt to begin with?

 

[Ben K.]

France are still up for it. That would be kind of ironic.

 

[solletica]

What a difference a year makes... and I wonder if we will have the hair-a-fire Leftists taking Obama to task.
Where is the coalition?
Where is UN approval?
Where is approval from Congress?

This guy is a walking, talking Saturday Night Live skit, and you don't have to twist what he says... as they did with Sarah Palin.

Does anyone think Palin wouldn't be 10-times the president of this Amateur?

palin doesn't know where the Middle East is located.

As for O, he has no intention of attacking Syria. If he did, he would've done so by now. O is likely just making empty promises to get the right wing militards in Congress off his back.

 

[solletica]

Not only did Bush get 49 other nations to support him, 69% of the House of Representatives voted YES passing a bill authorizing use of force, along with 77% of the senate.

It's another ejaculation for the offense contractors that lobby them, so yes.

 

[ItAin'tFree]

While the tail is wagging the dog and all eyes are turned to Syria and whether or not the Obama Admin. will use military strikes, I wonder what we are overlooking...what is our government getting away with while we are all distracted with the Syria situation?

On the Syria note;
We dont know who set off the chemical weapons, after all it could have been a fringe group from outside Syria
We dont know what chemical weapons were used

Using Biden's own words, if the President uses military action without Congressional approval, it is an impeachable offense. Joe Biden Warned In 2007 That He'd Impeach Bush For Waging War Without Congressional Approval



or even then-Senator Obama's words - Candidate Obama vs. President Obama On The Use Of Military Force


I really hope they do not attempt to bomb Syria, we can not afford it...both financially and physically.

But I have been reading around the net (I know, real reliable source) that the US needs a new war to dig itself out of the financial mess it is in.

Well, according to those two, they should have pushed the House to start Impeachment proceedings right after the Libya misadventure.

 

[zimmer]

I don't like the guy but I see he's kinda in a Darned if I do Darned if I don't. With no really good anwers. He's made a bunch of "red lines" and each time Syria has crossed them. So it looks like he can't enforce any threats he makes, makeing the US look like a Paper Tiger.

On other hand our "allies" don't want to have anything to do with "military action in syria" and our "enemys" are all saying "We will be 'forced to act' if you attack our firend" so it looks like hes another "cowboy" president if he dose act.

Its either Cowboy or Coward. No matter what happens he will be called one or the other.

On the other other hand He's the one who put himself in the tough spot to start with.

Bullseye...

HE, is the one who claimed to have superior judgment, is the one who blew it.

I think anyone who is half way politically savvy would have known you don't paint a Red Line as he had.

This is why Obama has a teleprompter grafted to his forehead; he cannot be trusted to speak extemporaneously.

Change You can Believe In? You Betcha... utter incompetence on every front.

 

[zimmer]

Not only did Bush get 49 other nations to support him, 69% of the House of Representatives voted YES passing a bill authorizing use of force, along with 77% of the senate.

And... Senate Demokrats asked for and got a second vote to send troops.

They wanted to be on record as not being so anti-military, so anti- intel services, so weak on matter of national security. It was a political vote, as evidenced by their turn on the troops and a then popular president at the first opportunity.

Voting to send troops to battle is the most important vote an elected representative makes, and Demokrats used that vote for political expediency. Purely disgusting.

WHY doesn't Pelosi head over to Syria and talk to Basher?

Basher: Thank you for coming and undermining your country. Believe me, we think you are an idiot too.
Basher: I hear in America they say you suck. True?

Basher: You Ride too?

Basher: Spank... my little puppet?

Pelosi... Our Minority Leading fool.

 

[Imnukingfutz]

I am for Syrian intervention. But would not that dig the US even to greater debt to begin with?

At first I would think it would, but as the war machine revs up its engine and the buying spree begins, just as it did when Iraq & Afghanistan got rolling, Just as did when WWII got started, eventually the war machine pushes the economy forward.

 

[Imnukingfutz]

Well, according to those two, they should have pushed the House to start Impeachment proceedings right after the Libya misadventure.

Dont you know with the Libs, it's do as I say not as I do.

 

[mac]

palin doesn't know where the Middle East is located.

As for O, he has no intention of attacking Syria. If he did, he would've done so by now. O is likely just making empty promises to get the right wing militards in Congress off his back.

Funny...the "right wing militards" other than McCain seem to be opposing a strike.

 

[TheGirlNextDoor]

Not only did Bush get 49 other nations to support him, 69% of the House of Representatives voted YES passing a bill authorizing use of force, along with 77% of the senate.

Get out of here with facts.

 

[Lord of Planar]

I am for Syrian intervention. But would not that dig the US even to greater debt to begin with?

If you are for it, just go over and be a volunteer soldier for them.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Get out of here with facts.

LOL...

I have a hard time doing that. Over the years I have visited one forum site or another, I see probably about 90% of the responses based on media propaganda, rather than fact. From both sides.

Sometimes I slip too, but I try to find the relevant facts before taking a stand one way or another. I am opposed to all this action we are complicit in, over in North Africa. Starting the day Obomba sent 112 cruise missiles into Libya, I looked into some facts, and was amazed after all these years, we try to control smaller sovereign nations that are not a threat to us.

 

[Montecresto]

I don't like the guy but I see he's kinda in a Darned if I do Darned if I don't. With no really good anwers. He's made a bunch of "red lines" and each time Syria has crossed them. So it looks like he can't enforce any threats he makes, makeing the US look like a Paper Tiger.

On other hand our "allies" don't want to have anything to do with "military action in syria" and our "enemys" are all saying "We will be 'forced to act' if you attack our firend" so it looks like hes another "cowboy" president if he dose act.

Its either Cowboy or Coward. No matter what happens he will be called one or the other.

On the other other hand He's the one who put himself in the tough spot to start with.

No! Cowboy or coward aren't his only choices. He can follow the will of American people, congress and the UN Security Council! That would provide him the most credibility.

 

[Montecresto]

You know Obama campaigned on (amongst other things that have become lies), we need to talk to our enemies, diplomacy goes along way. But I don't believe he's ever sat down and talked to Mr. Assad.

 

[keith]

The new boss----same as the old boss...will we get fooled again?

 

[DDD]

If you are for it, just go over and be a volunteer soldier for them.

Yes, I noticed you are spreading this statement even before. That is not why I come here. I come here to give you my opinion.

But do not think that Dardania would leave you alone should you choose to intervene? The foreign ministry asked for an intervention. I suppose the government would now put effort where their words were.

So in the roundabout way the soldiers whom are volunteers alone here (i.e., not drafted) may be involved anyhow.

 

[Grand Mal]

No! Cowboy or coward aren't his only choices. He can follow the will of American people, congress and the UN Security Council! That would provide him the most credibility.

Gandhi, Solomon and Santa Claus couldn't between them "follow the will of American people, congress and the UN Security Council".

 

[Montecresto]

Gandhi, Solomon and Santa Claus couldn't between them "follow the will of American people, congress and the UN Security Council".

Well, a long dead guy and two fictitious guys, no I don't suppose. However, what would be so difficult about following established protocol?

 

[Grand Mal]

Well, a long dead guy and two fictitious guys, no I don't suppose. However, what would be so difficult about following established protocol?

You want the POTUS to follow the will of the UN? Or to guess the will of the American people? Or wait for Congress to lay an egg? What if, after all the protocols have been followed, Congress decides in favour of military intervention, but France, the UK and whoever else is already mopping up? Who's asking for effective leadership then?