• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

President Who Gives Speeches On Every Initiative Decides To Not Inform The Public

Wehrwolfen

Banned
Joined
May 11, 2013
Messages
2,329
Reaction score
402
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
PRESIDENT WHO GIVES SPEECHES ON EVERY SINGLE POLITICAL INITIATIVE DECIDES TO NOT INFORM THE PUBLIC THAT HE'S PLUNGING THE COUNTRY INTO A THIRD WAR; CLAIMS DECISION IS NOT POLITICALLY MOTIVATED


So let's see what a leftist Obamanaut has to say about Syria:



So this strike is not only unpopular with conservatives and with independents, but also with his base.

So how can a president start a war his base is opposed to?

Simple: Just don't tell anybody.



With military action against Syria set to begin within hours, according to reports, President Barack Obama and his administration are determining what legal route to take in order to justify the attack. According to NBC News White House reporter Chuck Todd, the administration is leery of seeking Congressional support for a mission in Syria because Congress many decline to bless such an operation. Now, according to reports from POLITICO’s Glenn Thrush, Obama may seek to avoid the American people as well.
Thrush reported on Wednesday that, based on his conversations with aides to the president, Obama will not address the American people about the mission in Syria before hostilities commence. Thrush reports that Obama’s advisors believe addressing Americans from the gravity of the Oval Office or the East Room is “passé.” Furthermore, most Americans who care about the mission in Syria will learn the logic behind it from cable news.

2.png

Read more:
<i><font color="red">PRESIDENT WHO GIVES SPEECHES ON EVERY SINGLE POLITICAL INITIATIVE DECIDES TO NOT INFORM THE PUBLIC THAT HE'S PLUNGING THE COUNTRY INTO A THIRD WAR;<br>CLAIMS DECISION IS NOT POLITICALLY MOTIVATED</font></i>

Unless Obama goes to Congress for authorization and the UN for a resolution condemning Syria, along with a coalition of allies, Obama will be on the verge of impeachment. Perhaps he should consult with Joey Biden on the possibilities of impeachment.


On Syria, Obama's words have done nothing but corner himself
On Syria, Obama's words have done nothing but corner himself - CBS News
CBS News·15 hours ago If preserving the power of words seems like a silly thing to ponder on the eve of war ... (Not to mention the private pressure from his U.N. ambassador…
 

Moot

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 11, 2006
Messages
39,657
Reaction score
14,743
Location
Utah
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Congress hasn't declared war since WW2 and yet presidents have conducted military action without their approval going all the way back to when Truman set precedent by sending US forces into Korea. Since then the US has engaged in military action without a declaration of war in Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya. Obama invoked the 1973 war powers act to go into Libya that allows presidents to have a sixty day window to conduct military action, but after that they need congressional approval. Invoking the War Powers Act again is likely what he will do if does attack Syria.

But it's true, Obama's own words may have tripped him up. Because if Obama does attack Syria without notifying congress it would run counter to his words in 2007 when he said...."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.” But if he doesnt attack, then it will run counter to his words about drawing a red line if Assad used chemical weapons. To attack or not to attack, either way, he's going to be running counter to his own words regardless of what he decides to do.
 

Wehrwolfen

Banned
Joined
May 11, 2013
Messages
2,329
Reaction score
402
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Congress hasn't declared war since WW2 and yet presidents have conducted military action without their approval going all the way back to when Truman set precedent by sending US forces into Korea. Since then the US has engaged in military action without a declaration of war in Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya. Obama invoked the 1973 war powers act to go into Libya that allows presidents to have a sixty day window to conduct military action, but after that they need congressional approval. Invoking the War Powers Act again is likely what he will do if does attack Syria.

But it's true, Obama's own words may have tripped him up. Because if Obama does attack Syria without notifying congress it would run counter to his words in 2007 when he said...."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.” But if he doesnt attack, then it will run counter to his words about drawing a red line if Assad used chemical weapons. To attack or not to attack, either way, he's going to be running counter to his own words regardless of what he decides to do.


Iraq Resolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Resolution
The Iraq Resolution or the Iraq War Resolution (formally the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002, Pub.L. 107–243, 116 Stat. 1498 ...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

CNN.com - Senate approves Iraq war resolution - Oct. 11, 2002
archives.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/10/11/iraq.us
Oct 11, 2002 · In a major victory for the White House, the Senate early Friday voted 77-23 to authorize President Bush to attack Iraq if Saddam Hussein refuses to …

So you are claiming that Bush after receiving authorization from both houses of Congress was wrong, but Obama invoking a 40 year old?
BTW,

"War Powers Act" redirects here. For other uses, see War Powers Act of 1941.

Introduced in the House as H.J.Res. 542 by Clement J. Zablocki (D-WI) on May 3, 1973
Committee consideration by: House Foreign Affairs
Passed the House on July 18, 1973 (244–170)
Passed the Senate on July 20, 1973 (75-20)
Reported by the joint conference committee on October 4, 1973; agreed to by the Senate on October 10, 1973 (75–20) and by the House on October 12, 1973 (238–123)
Vetoed by President Richard Nixon on October 24, 1973
Overridden by the House on November 7, 1973 (284–135)
Overridden by the Senate and became law on November 7, 1973 (75–18)

The War Powers Resolution of 1973 (50 U.S.C. 1541-1548)[1] is a federal law intended to check the president's power to commit the United States to an armed conflict without the consent of Congress. The resolution was adopted in the form of a United States Congress joint resolution; this provides that the President can send U.S. armed forces into action abroad [B]only by declaration of war by Congress,[/B] "statutory authorization," or in case of "a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces."

The War Powers Resolution requires the President to notify Congress within 48 hours of committing armed forces to military action and forbids armed forces from remaining for more than 60 days, with a further 30 day withdrawal period, without an authorization of the use of military force or a declaration of war.
War Powers Resolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So you claim that Obama can start World War III without the need to go to Congress?
 

Moot

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 11, 2006
Messages
39,657
Reaction score
14,743
Location
Utah
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Resolution
The Iraq Resolution or the Iraq War Resolution (formally the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002, Pub.L. 107–243, 116 Stat. 1498 ...
CNN.com - Senate approves Iraq war resolution - Oct. 11, 2002
archives.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/10/11/iraq.us
Oct 11, 2002 · In a major victory for the White House, the Senate early Friday voted 77-23 to authorize President Bush to attack Iraq if Saddam Hussein refuses to …

So you are claiming that Bush after receiving authorization from both houses of Congress was wrong, but Obama invoking a 40 year old?


So, you are claiming that Bush violated the war powers act and diverted funding for Afganistan to Iraq and began a bombing campaign in Februrary 2002 a full 8 months before he notified congress and got a congressional resolution?


The War Powers Resolution of 1973 (50 U.S.C. 1541-1548)[1] is a federal law intended to check the president's power to commit the United States to an armed conflict without the consent of Congress. The resolution was adopted in the form of a United States Congress joint resolution; this provides that the President can send U.S. armed forces into action abroad [B]only by declaration of war by Congress, "statutory authorization," or in case of "a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces."

The War Powers Resolution requires the President to notify Congress within 48 hours of committing armed forces to military action and forbids armed forces from remaining for more than 60 days, with a further 30 day withdrawal period, without an authorization of the use of military force or a declaration of war.War Powers Resolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So you claim that Obama can start World War III without the need to go to Congress?
So you claim that Bush not only violated the war powers act but also the Geneva Convention and international law by using torture?
 

Wehrwolfen

Banned
Joined
May 11, 2013
Messages
2,329
Reaction score
402
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
So, you are claiming that Bush violated the war powers act and diverted funding for Afganistan to Iraq and began a bombing campaign in Februrary 2002 a full 8 months before he notified congress and got a congressional resolution?


So you claim that Bush not only violated the war powers act but also the Geneva Convention and international law by using torture?

Really? Did I write that, or did I show that G.W. Bush went to Congress for the authorization to invade and depose Saddam Hussein? He got that authorization and a UN Resolution to proceed. Bush did not violate the War Powers Act but Obama certainly is.

"Not to be confused with Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists or Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 1991.

President George Bush, surrounded by leaders of the House and Senate, announces the Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq, October 2, 2002.
The Iraq Resolution or the Iraq War Resolution (formally the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002,[1] Pub.L. 107–243, 116 Stat. 1498, enacted October 16, 2002, H.J.Res. 114) is a joint resolution passed by the United States Congress in October 2002 as Public Law No: 107-243, authorizing military action against Iraq."
 
Last edited:

Moot

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 11, 2006
Messages
39,657
Reaction score
14,743
Location
Utah
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Really? Did I write that, or did I show that G.W. Bush went to Congress for the authorization to invade and depose Saddam Hussein? He got that authorization and a UN Resolution to proceed. Bush did not violate the War Powers Act but Obama certainly is.

"Not to be confused with Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists or Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 1991.

President George Bush, surrounded by leaders of the House and Senate, announces the Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq, October 2, 2002.
The Iraq Resolution or the Iraq War Resolution (formally the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002,[1] Pub.L. 107–243, 116 Stat. 1498, enacted October 16, 2002, H.J.Res. 114) is a joint resolution passed by the United States Congress in October 2002 as Public Law No: 107-243, authorizing military action against Iraq."

So you're claiming that Bush bombed Iraq for months before he got a congressional authorization?


"...Page by relentless page, evidence has been stacking up for many months to show that - despite Tony Blair's denials - the British government signed up for war in Iraq almost a year before the invasion. What most people will not have realised until now, however, was that Britain and the US waged a secret war against Iraq for months before the tanks rolled over the border in March 2003. Documentary evidence and ministerial answers in parliament reveal the existence of a clandestine bombing campaign designed largely to provoke Iraq into taking action that could be used to justify the start of the war.

In the absence of solid legal grounds for war, in other words, the allies tried to bomb Saddam Hussein into providing their casus belli. And when that didn't work they just stepped up the bombing rate, in effect starting the conflict without telling anyone....

The main evidence lies in leaked documents relating to a crucial meeting chaired by the Prime Minister in July 2002 - the documents which supported the Sunday Times story, published during this past election campaign, about how Blair promised George W Bush in April that year that Britain would back regime change......

The MoD response shows that in March 2002 no bombs were dropped, and in April only 0.3 tonnes of ordnance used. The figure rose to 7.3 tonnes in May, however, then to 10.4 in June, dipping to 9.5 in July before rising again to 14.1 in August. Suddenly, in other words, US and British air forces were in action over Iraq....read

The war before the war
 

Wehrwolfen

Banned
Joined
May 11, 2013
Messages
2,329
Reaction score
402
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
So you're claiming that Bush bombed Iraq for months before he got a congressional authorization?


"...Page by relentless page, evidence has been stacking up for many months to show that - despite Tony Blair's denials - the British government signed up for war in Iraq almost a year before the invasion. What most people will not have realised until now, however, was that Britain and the US waged a secret war against Iraq for months before the tanks rolled over the border in March 2003. Documentary evidence and ministerial answers in parliament reveal the existence of a clandestine bombing campaign designed largely to provoke Iraq into taking action that could be used to justify the start of the war.

In the absence of solid legal grounds for war, in other words, the allies tried to bomb Saddam Hussein into providing their casus belli. And when that didn't work they just stepped up the bombing rate, in effect starting the conflict without telling anyone....

The main evidence lies in leaked documents relating to a crucial meeting chaired by the Prime Minister in July 2002 - the documents which supported the Sunday Times story, published during this past election campaign, about how Blair promised George W Bush in April that year that Britain would back regime change......

The MoD response shows that in March 2002 no bombs were dropped, and in April only 0.3 tonnes of ordnance used. The figure rose to 7.3 tonnes in May, however, then to 10.4 in June, dipping to 9.5 in July before rising again to 14.1 in August. Suddenly, in other words, US and British air forces were in action over Iraq....read

The war before the war

Rather to rehash what G.W. did ten years ago. Let's look at what your "Dear One" is doing today. He is unilaterally going to attack Syria without definitive proof and not with authorization of Congress. You can attempt to obfuscate the subject, but we all have experienced Obama's continual lies and violation of our Constitution and the personal oath that he's taken. Perhaps you've forgotten the sage constitutional words of Joey Biden. If they were right for G.W. Bush in 2003, they are certainly correct for Barack Obama in 2013.

 

Moot

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 11, 2006
Messages
39,657
Reaction score
14,743
Location
Utah
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Rather to rehash what G.W. did ten years ago. Let's look at what your "Dear One" is doing today. He is unilaterally going to attack Syria without definitive proof and not with authorization of Congress. You can attempt to obfuscate the subject, but we all have experienced Obama's continual lies and violation of our Constitution and the personal oath that he's taken. Perhaps you've forgotten the sage constitutional words of Joey Biden. If they were right for G.W. Bush in 2003, they are certainly correct for Barack Obama in 2013.

[video=youtube;Adpa5kYUhCA]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Adpa5kYUhCA[video]​


"We're not considering any open-ended commitment," the president said. "We're not considering any boots-on-the-ground approach."

Obama emphasized that he has not made any decisions about what actions the United States will take. He said his military advisers have looked at a wide range of options.....

Obama: Syria represents 'a challenge to the world'
 

Wehrwolfen

Banned
Joined
May 11, 2013
Messages
2,329
Reaction score
402
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
"We're not considering any open-ended commitment," the president said. "We're not considering any boots-on-the-ground approach."

Obama emphasized that he has not made any decisions about what actions the United States will take. He said his military advisers have looked at a wide range of options.....

Obama: Syria represents 'a challenge to the world'

Exactly, Obama hasn't made any sound decisions about taking actions, see: Invasion of Georgia, the Iran revolt, Libya, Tunisia, Egypt or Syria. Just how many innocent people have died due to Obama's failures in foreign policy logic?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Obama Foreign Policy | failures | opposition

legalinsurrection.com/2013/...obamas...obamas-foreign-policy-failures

Supporters of Obama want to demonize his political opponents, but that doesn't change the reality of Obama's foreign policy failures
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Obama’s foreign policy failures catalogued

www.powerlineblog.com/archives/.../obamas-foreign-policy-failures...
With the help of the mainstream media, President Obama has been able to pass himself off as a successful president when it comes to foreign policy.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Top ten Obama foreign policy failures

www.aei-ideas.org/2012/08/top-ten-obama-foreign-policy-failures

Last night, Condi Rice took on President Obama’s foreign policy leadership, declaring “We cannot be reluctant to lead and you cannot lead from behind.”
 

Moot

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 11, 2006
Messages
39,657
Reaction score
14,743
Location
Utah
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
(Reuters) - President Barack Obama said on Saturday he had decided the United States should strike Syrian government targets in response to a deadly chemical weapons attack, but said he would seek a congressional vote for any military action.

"We cannot and will not turn a blind eye to what happened in Damascus," Obama said in statement at the White House Rose Garden.

Obama says U.S. should strike Syria, will seek congressional vote | Reuters
 
Top Bottom