G W BUSH "bad intelligence"

[revelarts]

"bad intelligence"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nevmEie-LgE

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=soohikNdbWs

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FejQH_VCB24

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ntfUs_rNEw8

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iiw0ILaXJf0

"I apologise," said Tony Blair in an interview with CNN's Fareed Zakaria, "for the fact that the intelligence we received was wrong because, even though (Saddam) had used chemical weapons extensively against his own people, against others, the program in the form that we thought it was did not exist in the way that we thought."


Smoke Bush, Powell, Blair and Trump.

[NightTrain]

Deliberate stupidity V.1

[Elessar]

"bad intelligence"



"I apologise," said Tony Blair in an interview with CNN's Fareed Zakaria, "for the fact that the intelligence we received was wrong because, even though (Saddam) had used chemical weapons extensively against his own people, against others, the program in the form that we thought it was did not exist in the way that we thought."

Are you just now figuring that out, REV?




Smoke Bush, Powell, Blair and Trump.

Too bad that the whole civilized world accepted it at the time, as well
as 87% of the U.S.Congress.
Essentially. GWB did NOT lie. much to the liberal whiners concern, and yours.

It stinks, yes. But what was believed as true was acted upon.

Care tell, how does this apply to this era?

[revelarts]

Too bad that the whole civilized world accepted it at the time, as wellas 87% of the U.S.Congress. Essentially. GWB did NOT lie. much to the liberal whiners concern, and yours. It stinks, yes. But what was believed as true was acted upon.
Care tell, how does this apply to this era?
Didn't want to derail the other thread.

but,
Bush "believed" and told the world that Iraq had and was making WMDs and the U.S. attacked on false premises.

Trump "believes" and told the world that Syria used Chemical Weapons and he attacked Syria. Is it worth questioning the presidents the assertions in this era. Is it worth getting firm confirmation BEFORE we attack another nation again?

[FakeNewsSux]

Don't forget, it wasn't just bad intel. The irresistible impulse of an establishment Republican to be "bi-partisan" just couldn't be overcome.

From she who would be Queen, the smartest, most qualified woman in the history of the world:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DkS9y5t0tR0

And after he voted against it:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MxfIHR64RkQ

[revelarts]

Hillary and Kerry were both wrong and love war as well as most Neo-cons. But Hillary wasn't the CiC, Bush was. He's got to own it and he has somewhat.

There were only a few people that stood against the invasion of Iraq in congress, the intel orgs and the media.
But they were mocked and shouted down. Called names, called unpatriotic, But somehow they had the FACTS correct.
To bad getting people to get off of their partisan or flag waving jingoistic hobby-horses to THINK OBJECTIVELY is a miracle that they couldn't pull off though.

Some on the right like Ron Paul, and some on the left like Dennis Kucinich, Plus various people in the CIA, DIA, NSA and the Pentagon not to mentioned the hated and mocked U.N. inspectors. Plus a few in the media.

even Blix said it would only take weeks to determine if there were WMDs to be concerned about. but ...noooo.
Bush, Hillary, Chenny Rummy all knew better.

I'm not sure why some people get so pissed and act like i'm an enemy when I simply says we need to quadruple check the Facts from all sources BEFORE we decide to attack/bomb/invade other countries.

and add that BTW our elected officials at all levels should FOLLOW THE CONSTITUTION, at all times...and let congress declare war....1st.

Is following the constitution and getting solid proof by checking with ALL sources before going to war considered America hatin' leftwing crazy talk for some folks on the right nowadays?

[NightTrain]

You've been educated about the War Powers Act at least a dozen times,

Your stupid charade pretending that you don't know what's up is embarrassing.

If you somehow don't remember the education provided by me and others, re-educate yourself and report back here to apologize.

Dismissed.

[revelarts]

You've been educated about the War Powers Act at least a dozen times,

Your stupid charade pretending that you don't know what's up is embarrassing.

If you somehow don't remember the education provided by me and others, re-educate yourself and report back here to apologize.

Dismissed.



Attacking Iraq did not fall under the War Powers Act, this is why Bush went to congress and squeezed out of them the Iraq Resolution and then went to the U.N. for approval. Because without either Bush would have been in violation of the Constitution, the War powers Act AND international law.
And attacking Syria now does not fall under the War Powers Act either.

I've read carefully what you and others mention concerning the war powers act and often it's tossed out as the 1st excuse but eventually i'm told things GENERALLY LIKE this "all the other presidents have done it... hundreds of time therefore IT'S OK somehow" and often added as you did in the other thread.. "...they were scum bags and deserved it..." so we should all "wave the flag" and support it. Without question ,legal or otherwise, i guess. Or others will add something LIKE "...something had to be done we can't DO NOTHING..." or something LIKE "...I'm glad a REAL man was the CIC"..." and sometimes the additional reply comes back LIKE "get them BEFORE they get us" or "we're not 'isolationist' we have to bomb/attack/invade other nations" (implying outside of constitutional limits, U.S. and international laws) and because "it's not the 1800s anymore."
(then of course there's finally "why do you hate America?" "why do you think America is evil?" "why do you hate Bush" "democrat Z, Y and/or Z did it too so it's ok")

But maybe i really haven't understood what you and other mean by "the War powers Act".
It's obvious that many here think it grants far more authority than i do. (I think the act is practically unconstitutional really)
But if i could get some clarity from you or others.
and someone could answer 4 questions and clear this up for me about YOU folks CORRECT understanding of the War Powers Act.

1. What LIMITS does war power act put on a President of the U.S..?
2. at what points would a president have BROKEN the law and over stepped the Act?
3. Would any punishments apply for overstepping the boundaries? If so what, if not why not?
4. Is the War Powers Act a 'Blank Check' that allows the president to do ANYTHING, ANYTIME ANYWHERE in the world militarily? If not, what CAN'T he do?


I'm sorry if my questions are "stupid" but if some kind hearted and patient person would stoop to help this poor confused soul, i'd be truly grateful. Because i really would like to understand why folks think
that many of the past presidents actions and our current bombing of Syria with the few thousand ground forces that have been in Syria for over year now has been legal or constitutional. And it doesn't make our Presidents either constitutional criminals or defacto military warlords.

[Russ]

Rev, there are a few difference between Bush-Iraq back then and Trump-Syria now. First of all, we had intel saying that Iraq had chemical weapons back then, but now we all just saw Syria use the chemical weapons. Or are you disputing they used chemical weapons? Or are you saying we don't know it was Syria used them? I'm assuming you are not saying that.

Second, Trump doesn't want to attack in Syria. In fact, he wants to withdraw from there. I actually think that Assad did the chemical weapons attack in response to Trump's statement that he wanted to leave Syria. Assad wanted to thumb his nose at Trump to say "now I can do whatever I want" but miscalculated about Trump's response. He'd gotten used to the Obama "where's my spine?" foreign policy.

Overall, Trump appears to have no plans whatsoever to do any more offensive actions in Syria, so why compare him to the Bush "bad intel" situation?

[aboutime]

An addage we all know, such as:
http://lifeasahuman.com/files/2012/03/6617388425_42704d2e7c_z.jpg

That you are practicing here, just like Democrats, and little kids who keep blaming others for their ignorance, and STUPID mistakes... So, you repeat the same old crap, years after it took place, and hope none of us will notice???
http://statusmind.com/images/2015/03/Smart-Quotes-56630-statusmind.com.jpg

[revelarts]

Rev, there are a few difference between Bush-Iraq back then and Trump-Syria now. First of all, we had intel saying that Iraq had chemical weapons back then, but now we all just saw Syria use the chemical weapons. Or are you disputing they used chemical weapons? Or are you saying we don't know it was Syria used them? I'm assuming you are not saying that.

Yes i'm saying that we Do NOT know that Assad ordered the Attack.
AND that we don't know that it was a chemical attack.
there are reports from British and American journalist that have visited the site and report that the dr's in that hospital and others in the area say there was NO chemical attack but people suffering and choking from dust after some attack or building collapse. And there has been no independent report from the OPCW chem weapons inspectors that confirms the chemical attack yet. And NO hard evidence that confirms Assad's troops made a chem attack or much less that he gave the orders.

So it is similar in the sense that both Iraq and Syria are saying they don't have or did not do the crime.
While the U.S. and allies INSIST confidently that they did. And that the U.S. and friends need to give the evil dictators a spanking.



Second, Trump doesn't want to attack in Syria. In fact, he wants to withdraw from there.
that's what he said during the campaign and just weeks before the alleged chem attacks.
But Bush said he wasn't for fighting foreign wars, adventures and wasn't for nation building when he campaigned as well , then there was 9/11. And he decided to attack a country that had ZERO to do with 9/11 and start nation building. So somehow that idea went out the window for him as well.
(And please don't tell me "well when a man get's in office..." It's just an excuse.)



I actually think that Assad did the chemical weapons attack in response to Trump's statement that he wanted to leave Syria. Assad wanted to thumb his nose at Trump to say "now I can do whatever I want" but miscalculated about Trump's response. He'd gotten used to the Obama "where's my spine?" foreign policy.
that's a nice story but, how about lets prove the attack 1st before we start making up actions and motives.

But if we're speculating on motives then really Assad had NO good motives to use chem weapons. Trump had already shown last year that he'd bomb. Why risk pulling him back? ESPECIALLY since Assad was already winning against the ISIS/rebels without chem weapons. He's nearly regained 100% of his country from ISIS/rebels. And Trump had said he was removing US military. Assad wants him to remove all U.S. troops and air threats, so the stupidest thing he could have done was to use chem weapons. And he hasn't stayed in power through the last 3 or 4 presidents attempts to get rid of him becasue he's stupid.



Overall, Trump appears to have no plans whatsoever to do any more offensive actions in Syria, so why compare him to the Bush "bad intel" situation?
Because it started the same way, with accusations of crimes over weapons.
And the accusations from Bush (and many dems) were FALSE.
And at this point it looks like these accusation against Assad are false as well.

Plus there's the question of constitutionality and general legality in both cases.
Iraq never attacked the U.S., neither has Syria but somehow both Presidents think it's A-OK to militarily invade, overthrow or "teach a lesson" to them. Russ, there's NOTHING in the Constitution or the war power act that gives the President the right to willy-nilly attack other nations for 10 minutes. Even if it's "JUST" to bomb them for a few days. Even if there are no causalities and it "JUST" buildings, military facilities and national airfields.
So yes there are very real similarities, even if Trump SAYS he has 'no plans' to do AS MUCH as Bush did.

(BTW funny thing, no one ever answers me when i ask if it's NOT "War", if another country "just" bombs the U.S. for a few days.)

[FakeNewsSux]

Rev, I feel your pain. Yes in a perfect world the President would ask for a formal declaration of war from the Congress but unfortunately, Congress has determined that it is better to abdicate its responsibilities to the Executive Branch and its many departments and bureaus and after the fact either take credit for success or scream about failure. This is not only a sad reality when it comes to war and other foreign policy measures, it's true for most domestic policy as well. After a Democrat controlled Congress voted down the Dream Act the President told a group of immigration activists that he wasn't a king and couldn't just sign a law removing the risk of deportation for minor illegal aliens. A few months later he did just that and signed DACA into law. On the GOP side, the Republican controlled Congress has steadfastly refused to do its one Constitutionally proscribed duty, passing a damn budget! I don't think that the current situation has evolved from overly aggressive Presidents seizing unconstitutional powers but rather the result of feckless career politicians in Congress desiring not to be held accountable for anything that could put a crimp in their fundraising efforts. Hard term limits would go a long way to solving many of the problems you have brought up.

[revelarts]

Rev, I feel your pain. Yes in a perfect world the President would ask for a formal declaration of war from the Congress but unfortunately, Congress has determined that it is better to abdicate its responsibilities to the Executive Branch and its many departments and bureaus and after the fact either take credit for success or scream about failure. This is not only a sad reality when it comes to war and other foreign policy measures, it's true for most domestic policy as well. After a Democrat controlled Congress voted down the Dream Act the President told a group of immigration activists that he wasn't a king and couldn't just sign a law removing the risk of deportation for minor illegal aliens. A few months later he did just that and signed DACA into law. On the GOP side, the Republican controlled Congress has steadfastly refused to do its one Constitutionally proscribed duty, passing a damn budget! I don't think that the current situation has evolved from overly aggressive Presidents seizing unconstitutional powers but rather the result of feckless career politicians in Congress desiring not to be held accountable for anything that could put a crimp in their fundraising efforts. Hard term limits would go a long way to solving many of the problems you have brought up.

Term limits would probably help, i'd agree.
But it'd still be money and influence in the game spoiling the pot. Notice Obama's 1st speech after he left office. It wasn't to an immigrants group, or Black lives matter, or the Muslim brotherhood. it was to a Wall St. group that gave him a fat check... for services rendered maybe?

Congressional term limits without the ability to collect fat checks or seats in any company that they tangentially could have influenced the fortunes of. Not sure how the logistics would work on that but i suspect FAR fewer people would be running for office without the perks of and after office.

As far as presidents seizing powers, I'd have to disagree a bit there. Truman SEIZED the power to go into Korea on non existent legal pretense, of a "police action". Johnson and Nixon sent troops into Vietnam and Nixon secretly bombed Cambodia for like a year. When caught and called on it he fought the congress on even producing the generous "war powers act" CLAIMING that he already had those powers. He vetoed it and the congress had the votes to override. Other presidents did the same, with only a few congress people challenging the acts, some by offering impeachment papers that went nowhere others by filing suit that dead-ended in Courts that sadly didn't want to act against a sitting president. Dick Chenney expressly said that he wanted the president to exercise MORE powers than he legally had. the Sad thing at this point is it's been done so many times now that people seem to think "its NORMAL" or even good that a president can fire missiles, drop bombs or send troops into foreign countries AT will at his singular discretion.

People crossing the boarder and setting up house in the U.S. is normal by the same standard. But somehow many people see the problem with the illegality and want it stopped. The fact that something has been allowed to go on for some time doesn't make it legal, or mean it's a good idea.
Obama's DACCA and his drone strikes to 17+ different countries, Military actions to oust Qaddafi, continuing many of the Bush era spying on citizens among other things, all unconstitutional.

I'm not looking for perfection but unless "we the people" can get somewhat on the same page constitution wise it's not going to matter if it's a democrat or republican president. either way they'll have defacto dictatorial powers.

[jimnyc]

But maybe i really haven't understood what you and other mean by "the War powers Act".

Yup, that about wraps up the entire past, present, and likely endless future. Things can only be explained factually so many ways and times. If it isn't fully understood by then, it most likely never will be. :rolleyes:

Personally, I find the act to be crystal clear, and apparently our presidents and congress mostly think so as well.

It's like teaching someone advanced calculus. If they are taught 50x, by various teachers, and the folks that designed the use of, then perhaps time for the student to drop said class and move onto another course.

Swearing over and over endlessly does nothing at all to advance your debate. Posting the same things via youtube videos makes no difference. The arguments are soft, but you outright believe ANYONE who agrees with your position.

But IS funny that you have always leaped from Bush and now to Trump, and pretty much never outright went after, or go after Obama. Pretty much only when someone calls you on it as I do now. And then we'll get the obligatory "Well yeah, he was no better" and that's about the end of that. :rolleyes:

[Black Diamond]

Yup, that about wraps up the entire past, present, and likely endless future. Things can only be explained factually so many ways and times. If it isn't fully understood by then, it most likely never will be. :rolleyes:

Personally, I find the act to be crystal clear, and apparently our presidents and congress mostly think so as well.

It's like teaching someone advanced calculus. If they are taught 50x, by various teachers, and the folks that designed the use of, then perhaps time for the student to drop said class and move onto another course.

Swearing over and over endlessly does nothing at all to advance your debate. Posting the same things via youtube videos makes no difference. The arguments are soft, but you outright believe ANYONE who agrees with your position.

But IS funny that you have always leaped from Bush and now to Trump, and pretty much never outright went after, or go after Obama. Pretty much only when someone calls you on it as I do now. And then we'll get the obligatory "Well yeah, he was no better" and that's about the end of that. :rolleyes:
can't imagine why he does that.

[jimnyc]

And of course once again, about 15 "quotes" of the past that aren't actually quoted. Gotta love when someone makes up their own past!

When some in the past said shit like "blacks should be able to do as they please as they were marginalized" and perhaps others intimated things like "it's white folks that brought us to here" or "riots and destroying things" is a civil right". Or that "black lives in Chicago mean nothing" to some because it doesn't fit the agenda". Or good times on the board when folks state things like "muslims should have more rights than catholics".

Folks wouldn't care much, right, as since no one quoted, none will be any wiser. I mean, WHO are they going to think actually made any such statements? So I can toss out any generalization I care to - but just surround it with quotations and all is good, SOMEONE must have said it in the past, and since I quoted it, that confirms it. But are those the "exact" words you actually wrote? Only I know for sure. But about right of course.

[jimnyc]

can't imagine why he does that.

I do.

[jimnyc]

Also FACTUAL:

-WMD's WERE found, both found, and watched moving.
-Again, old non-weaponized found. But "some" know better and think the age did them in, even though inspectors state otherwise. "Some here" know better. LOL
-Bush did NOT lie
- The war in Iraq was legit
- the 12 years of failed resolutions brought it about, even if they had no weapons. That's what full unfettered inspections are for

-and it's STILL funny watching "some" of the frothers out there!

[jimnyc]

This is exactly how "some" of the folks actually look when they disagree with anything and everything government:

https://i.imgur.com/y0sQqC0h.jpg

[Black Diamond]

This is exactly how "some" of the folks actually look when they disagree with anything and everything government:

https://i.imgur.com/y0sQqC0h.jpg
:laugh:

[jimnyc]

can't imagine why he does that.

Do yourself a favor - go to advanced search here on the board, do a search on "Obama" with the username "revelarts", tell it to search titles only - open and check out these whole 27 threads in 6 pages of results, from how many years? Mind you, NOT ALL of them are even negative of Obama. Now do a search the same, but instead of Obama, place in "Trump".

Odd that he's created 38 threads about Trump in 1/4 of the time. And sure, both have issues, both had issues. I would love to hear "well, Obama just wasn't as bad".

[jimnyc]

-the law requires that presidents notify Congress after deploying the armed forces and limits how long units can remain engaged without congressional approval.

-The law’s text frames it as a means of guaranteeing that “the collective judgment of both the Congress and the President will apply” whenever the American armed forces are deployed overseas. - easy to defeat the latest whinefest about Syria as Trump didn't deploy troops into Syria.

- To that end, it requires the President to consult with the legislature “in every possible instance” before committing troops to war. - which he and others did via the intelligence committees. Not to mention, to those whining, there was no committing troops to a war.

-the responsibility to notify Congress within 48 hours whenever military forces are introduced “into hostilities or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances.” - was reported and completed.

-the law stipulates that Presidents are required to end foreign military actions after 60 days unless Congress provides a declaration of war or an authorization for the operation to continue. - as has been told to the whiners many times, the Prez has 60 days to continue as is, and then must seek further congressional approval. Was completed in Iraq, and not necessary with Syria.

- 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 a Congressional authorization for use of military force

Of course "some" will see things that don't exist, find fault with everything but Obama, declare laws broken when none were, will state "the usa regularly breaks the law and constitution when a republican is in office" and even some others will state "it's always been about oil and nothing more than oil" and will even proclaim "to have heard with their own ears that this is the case".

And yet the facts are CRYSTAL CLEAR. But folks have stated that "the resolution doesn't matter at all" and that "I know it's unconstitutional from day one, and even overheard some say that". :laugh: "some" will say that Obama was the only righteous one, even if lead wrong by others at times, but at least followed the law and constitution. Truth!!

[revelarts]

Yup, that about wraps up the entire past, present, and likely endless future. Things can only be explained factually so many ways and times. If it isn't fully understood by then, it most likely never will be :rolleyes:
Personally, I find the act to be crystal clear, and apparently our presidents and congress mostly think so as well.
It's like teaching someone advanced calculus. If they are taught 50x, by various teachers, and the folks that designed the use of, then perhaps time for the student to drop said class and move onto another course.
maybe... sure sometimes it is the student's fault , but sometimes it's just poor teachers.

Funny thing is, I asked 4 simply questions to specifically clarify the "calculus" to me, but no one has replied directly.
Does that mean the teachers don't have any good answers? Or that maybe it shows the teachers are wrong?
who knows. But If it's so clear to you guys , folks would think someone could provide a clear reply to the questions.




Swearing over and over endlessly does nothing at all to advance your debate.

I haven't swore have i?



Posting the same things via youtube videos makes no difference. The arguments are soft, but you outright believe ANYONE who agrees with your position.
I replied to reasonably replies here.
But one called me stupid. you implied it here as well, would you call those less than soft "debate" points?
but hey if that's the best some folks can do as far as arguments go, oh well.



But IS funny that you have always leaped from Bush and now to Trump, and pretty much never outright went after, or go after Obama. Pretty much only when someone calls you on it as I do now. And then we'll get the obligatory "Well yeah, he was no better" and that's about the end of that. :rolleyes:
Tried to provided apples to apples as best i could. Russ couldn't even see the comparison between Bush and Trump.
Obama and Trump ON THIS ISSUE is a longer stretch.
Bush accused Saddam of WMDs and attacked.
Trump Accused Assad of WMDs and Attacked.
Obama Accused Assad of WMDs and DID NOT attack.
So it's a more of stretch to Use Obama here. Even his unconstitutional actions against Libya (which i condemned often at the time) were based on slightly different premises. And were carried out in a slightly different way. Not DIRECT missle strikes or open use of troops.

But hey, If there's a next time I'll use Obama 1st if that make you feel better.
It is odd that folks really have a very hard time seeing past partisan politics. And paste POVs on folks based on SILENCE.

[revelarts]

can't imagine why he does that.

well frankly, You should ask me directly.
I'm not shy with my opinions am I BD?

And we all know what assuming does for us.

[jimnyc]

maybe... sure sometimes it is the student's fault , but sometimes it's just poor teachers.

Funny thing is, I asked 4 simply questions to specifically clarify the "calculus" to me, but no one has replied directly.
Does that mean the teachers don't have any good answers? Or that maybe it shows the teachers are wrong?
who knows. But If it's so clear to you guys , folks would think someone could provide a clear reply to the questions.


Because sometimes even teachers get tired of repeating themselves over and over and wasting time on students that ask over and over and fail to comprehend. Why spend repetitive time with them. Students as such get sent to remedial school.

If not, then soldier on without, I couldn't care less.

[jimnyc]

well frankly, You should ask me directly.
I'm not shy with my opinions am I BD?

And we all know what assuming does for us.

Well, there ya go then BD! Ask him why so many threads on Trump, and especially in comparison to Obama. And why Obama, who the entire nation thinks wiped his ass with the constitution.... and Rev is supposed to be ALL ABOUT the constitution - seemingly gave the man a pass but when truly pressed. Odd them apples!

[revelarts]

-the law requires that presidents notify Congress after deploying the armed forces and limits how long units can remain engaged without congressional approval.

-The law’s text frames it as a means of guaranteeing that “the collective judgment of both the Congress and the President will apply” whenever the American armed forces are deployed overseas. - easy to defeat the latest whinefest about Syria as Trump didn't deploy troops into Syria.

- To that end, it requires the President to consult with the legislature “in every possible instance” before committing troops to war. - which he and others did via the intelligence committees. Not to mention, to those whining, there was no committing troops to a war.

-the responsibility to notify Congress within 48 hours whenever military forces are introduced “into hostilities or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances.” - was reported and completed.

-the law stipulates that Presidents are required to end foreign military actions after 60 days unless Congress provides a declaration of war or an authorization for the operation to continue. - as has been told to the whiners many times, the Prez has 60 days to continue as is, and then must seek further congressional approval. Was completed in Iraq, and not necessary with Syria.

- 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 a Congressional authorization for use of military force

...

OK Jim,

I got it, I've read that before . the problem I have is that you don't sight ALL of the Act.
You quote those potions in isolation. What about the other limits? why don't you mention those?

You are concerned about the president following ALL of the law right not just the PART you mention here correct?
In calculus you have to use all of the portions in the equation to get the correct answer right?

[Black Diamond]

well frankly, You should ask me directly.
I'm not shy with my opinions am I BD?

And we all know what assuming does for us.
First of all, I'll ask Jim anything I want to ask him until he says "I don't feel like answering" or something of that nature. Certainly isn't your prerogative to say what I can and can't ask him.

And I already knew the answer to my question, and was pretty sure Jim knew as well. And the answer doesn't involve your vote in 2008 or 2012.

[jimnyc]

OK Jim,

I got it, I've read that before . the problem I have is that you don't sight ALL of the Act.
You quote those potions in isolation. What about the other limits? why don't you mention those?

You are concerned about the president following ALL of the law right not just the PART you mention here correct?
In calculus you have to use all of the portions in the equation to get the correct answer right?

It's "cite" not sight, tired of seeing that "typo". Sorry, pet peeve of mine, sue me.

The entire thing has been written and rewritten on this website many times for you. I quoted the portions necessary to make the point. There is NOTHING in the entire resolution that remotely overrides the ability of the president to let congress know, then take matters into his executive power for 60 days, and then would need to return to them in 60 days if any plans of going further. There is nothing, nada, zilch in this resolution that will change that.

Please don't try and act all educated because I purposely spelled out things for you that you FAIL to comprehend, no matter how many times the resolution is shown to you, no matter how many people and no matter how explained.

You can micro-quote until your head explodes, pick away til your head explodes, declare that so many presidents have been wrong til your head explodes and how certain individuals side with you un... you get the point.

MY only point is making it clear once again, not to debate with you. The debate has done many a times and many a folks debated you and schooled you. You just keep coming back thinking you know better. You don't.

[jimnyc]

Do yourself a favor - go to advanced search here on the board, do a search on "Obama" with the username "revelarts", tell it to search titles only - open and check out these whole 27 threads in 6 pages of results, from how many years? Mind you, NOT ALL of them are even negative of Obama. Now do a search the same, but instead of Obama, place in "Trump".

Odd that he's created 38 threads about Trump in 1/4 of the time. And sure, both have issues, both had issues. I would love to hear "well, Obama just wasn't as bad".

Troof!! :laugh2: I should be very very fraid I suppose. :(

https://i.imgur.com/LxcVIO6.jpg

https://i.imgur.com/4p6JZp7.jpg

[revelarts]

It's "cite" not sight, tired of seeing that "typo". Sorry, pet peeve of mine, sue .

The entire thing has been written and rewritten on this website many times for you. I quoted the portions necessary to make the point. There is NOTHING in the entire resolution that remotely overrides the ability of the president to let congress know, then take matters into his executive power for 60 days, and then would need to return to them in 60 days if any plans of going further. There is nothing, nada, zilch in this resolution that will change that.

Please don't try and act all educated because I purposely spelled out things for you that you FAIL to comprehend, no matter how many times the resolution is shown to you, no matter how many people and no matter how explained.

You can micro-quote until your head explodes, pick away til your head explodes, declare that so many presidents have been wrong til your head explodes and how certain individuals side with you un... you get the point.

MY only point is making it clear once again, not to debate with you. The debate has done many a times and many a folks debated you and schooled you. You just keep coming back thinking you know better. You don't.


PURPOSE AND POLICY

SEC. 2.
(a) It is the purpose of this joint resolution to fulfill the intent of the framers of the Constitution of the United States and insure that the collective judgement of both the Congress and the President will apply to the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, and to the continued use of such forces in hostilities or in such situations.

(b) Under article I, section 8, of the Constitution, it is specifically provided that the Congress shall have the power to make all laws necessary and proper for carrying into execution, not only its own powers but also all other powers vested by the Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.

(c) The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances,
are exercised only pursuant to
(1) a declaration of war,
(2) specific statutory authorization, or
(3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.
....

Jim, the parts of the resolution that you cited are subject to the above conditions.
why don't you include this in your reading. it's part of the law as well. .
You should not ignore it.
Heck Even Bush didn't for Iraq. He got congress to authorize that.

But Obama and Trump have ignored it.
hmm, I guess people like you and Trump ARE just like Obama.

[revelarts]

Congress woman Tulsi Gabbard ask Mattis about the War Powers Act BEFORE Trump had decided to Drop bombs on Syria:


GABBARD: Thank you. Thank you, gentlemen, for your service. You know, the President has indicated recently his intention to launch U.S. military attacks against Syria. Article one of the Constitution gives Congress the sole power to declare war. Congress has not done so against the Syrian government. Section 3 of the War Powers Resolution requires the president to consult with Congress before introducing U.S. Armed Forces into situations of hostilities. Section 2 of the War Powers Resolution clarifies the constitutional powers of the President as commander-in-chief. In article 2, which you referenced, Secretary Mattis, to introduce forces into hostilities
only pursuant to
1.) a declaration of war,
2.) specific statutory authorization or
3.) a national emergency created by an attack upon the U.S., its territories, possessions or Armed Forces.

Syria’s not declared war against the U.S. or threatened the U.S. The launch of 59 missiles against Syria by Trump last year was illegal and did not meet any of those criteria in the War Powers Resolution. The consolidated Appropriations Act of 2018 which was signed into law by President Trump states that none of the funds made available by this Act may be used with respect to Syria in contravention of the War Powers Resolution, including for the introduction of U.S. Armed Military Forces into hostilities in Syria.

My question is, will the President uphold the Constitution, the War Powers Resolution, and comply with the law that he signed – that he signed – by obtaining authorization from Congress before launching U.S. military attacks against Syria?

MATTIS: Congresswoman, we have not yet made any decision to launch military attacks into Syria. I think that when you look back at President Obama sending the U.S. troops into Syria at the time he did, he also had to deal with this type of situation. Because we were going after a named terrorist group that was not actually named in the AUMF that put them in. This is a complex area, I’ll be the first to admit.

GABBARD: It is it is simple, however, what the Constitution requires. So while you’re correct in saying the President has not yet made a decision, my question is will he abide by the Constitution and comply with the law?




the obvious and HONEST answer should have been,
NO. no he won't.

[jimnyc]

Jim, the parts of the resolution that you cited are subject to the above conditions.
why don't you include this in your reading. it's part of the law as well. .
You should not ignore it.
Heck Even Bush didn't for Iraq. He got congress to authorize that.

But Obama and Trump have ignored it.
hmm, I guess people like you and Trump ARE just like Obama.

Because it's been quoted for Mr. Unable To Comprehend a few to tens of times before. You act as if something was being hidden, as if you somehow are unable to read or "cite" things your own "educated" self.

And the part you speak of, is for entering US armed forces into hostilities. There are no such forces currently in Syria.

Goodnight, you bore me.

[jimnyc]

Congress woman Tulsi Gabbard ask Mattis about the War Powers Act BEFORE Trump had decided to Drop bombs on Syria:


GABBARD: Thank you. Thank you, gentlemen, for your service. You know, the President has indicated recently his intention to launch U.S. military attacks against Syria. Article one of the Constitution gives Congress the sole power to declare war. Congress has not done so against the Syrian government. Section 3 of the War Powers Resolution requires the president to consult with Congress before introducing U.S. Armed Forces into situations of hostilities. Section 2 of the War Powers Resolution clarifies the constitutional powers of the President as commander-in-chief. In article 2, which you referenced, Secretary Mattis, to introduce forces into hostilities
only pursuant to
1.) a declaration of war,
2.) specific statutory authorization or
3.) a national emergency created by an attack upon the U.S., its territories, possessions or Armed Forces.

Syria’s not declared war against the U.S. or threatened the U.S. The launch of 59 missiles against Syria by Trump last year was illegal and did not meet any of those criteria in the War Powers Resolution. The consolidated Appropriations Act of 2018 which was signed into law by President Trump states that none of the funds made available by this Act may be used with respect to Syria in contravention of the War Powers Resolution, including for the introduction of U.S. Armed Military Forces into hostilities in Syria.

My question is, will the President uphold the Constitution, the War Powers Resolution, and comply with the law that he signed – that he signed – by obtaining authorization from Congress before launching U.S. military attacks against Syria?

MATTIS: Congresswoman, we have not yet made any decision to launch military attacks into Syria. I think that when you look back at President Obama sending the U.S. troops into Syria at the time he did, he also had to deal with this type of situation. Because we were going after a named terrorist group that was not actually named in the AUMF that put them in. This is a complex area, I’ll be the first to admit.

GABBARD: It is it is simple, however, what the Constitution requires. So while you’re correct in saying the President has not yet made a decision, my question is will he abide by the Constitution and comply with the law?




the obvious and HONEST answer should have been,
NO. no he won't.

The true and honest answer would be abiding by the war powers resolution set forth in 1973. It was followed, each time used, and you don't care for that. Boo Hoo. That's constitutional. Write your congressman or write for office to make changes if you disagree. :rolleyes:

And save it about you care more about this or that BS. You've been schooled many times by Nighttrain, looking back on this, that I almost feel sorry for repeating things he's already made clear to you. You even ask pretty much the same questions, and demand answers to things clearly spelled out in the law for you. Again, don't like the resolution, write your congressman, but as of now, they are acting legally, and have acted legally.

[jimnyc]

Even easier, since you apply the COTUS - have it brought to the supremes and declared unconstitutional. There's a thought!

[revelarts]

Because it's been quoted for Mr. Unable To Comprehend a few to tens of times before. You act as if something was being hidden, as if you somehow are unable to read or "cite" things your own "educated" self.
And the part you speak of, is for entering US armed forces into hostilities. There are no such forces currently in Syria.
Goodnight, you bore me.

No Armed Forces?
really? So who exactly fired those missiles? Not the U.S. Navy and/or the U.S. Airforce?
Aren't they considered "armed forces" anymore?

Or are you saying that the Missiles weren't "ARMED", they just fell and didn't explode?
Oh wait, you said you SAW them hit targets and explode. you were bragging about it to the Russian poster.
So they were "ARMED" then.
Or are you saying that shooting people with Missiles really isn't "hostile"?

And BTW, as a matter of fact, there ARE at least 2000 U.S. troops (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/06/world/middleeast/us-troops-syria.html) on the ground in Syria.
At least 500 were there while Obama was in office Trump bumped the numbers or "disclosed" the numbers as 2000+.
So even IF the war powers act applied. he'd be far over the limited becasue they've been in Syria the whole time Trump's been in office!

So Sorry anyway you cut it, the Syria attack last moth AND last year and the troops on the ground in Syria this whole time were and are ILLEGAL. A clear Unconstitutional over reach of powers..

(I know "Obama did t too! so why now? I complained about a boatload list of unconstitutional Obama acts, would you like me to bore you with those again ... wiretapping the country without warrants, killing Americas without trial, Attacking and killing Qaddafi, made up immigration laws, Obamacare are always tops on my list would you like more...?
But the thing is Trump is President now he supposed to be 100 times BETTER than OBAMA right Jim, well he's WORSE were Syria's concerned so far.)

[revelarts]

Even easier, since you apply the COTUS - have it brought to the supremes and declared unconstitutional. There's a thought!

Ok, constitutional just like Obamacare and DACCA and everything else he did.
the courts haven't dealt any of that either so.
everything Obama did MUST be constitutional as well.

So if we have to wait for the Supremes to be brought in then ANYTHING the presidents do, As long as the SCOTUS lets them do it ,is OK by you.
fine.
Obama and Trump and Bush are all in the CLEAR.
at least that's an fairly honest answer.
kind of hypocritical since you've claimed many of Obama's actions unconstitutional as well as I, but it is fairly honest.
At least more honest than claiming that the wording of the laws and COTUS says Attacking Syria or Obama's immigration Executive orders, spying, killing etc align with the text and spirit of the laws and constitution.

[jimnyc]

Are you saying that you are an idiot?

Why yes you are.

[jimnyc]

Ok, constitutional just like Obamacare and DACCA and everything else he did.
the courts haven't dealt any of that either so.
everything Obama did MUST be constitutional as well.

So if we have to wait for the Supremes to be brought in then ANYTHING the presidents do, As long as the SCOTUS lets them do it ,is OK by you.
fine.
Obama and Trump and Bush are in the CLEAR.
at least that's an fairly honest answer.
kind of hypocritical since you've claimed many of Obama's actions unconstitutional as well as I, but it is fairly honest.
At least more honest than claiming that the wording of the laws and COTUS says Syria or Obama's immigration Executive orders, spying, killing etc align with the text and spirit of the laws and constitution.

Blabbity blabbity blabbity.

And it's DACA.

and yeah, they're all Gods. :rolleyes:

[aboutime]

REV....you sound more like OBAMA, every time you post here lately....

https://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2013/12/23/president-obamas-top-10-constitutional-violations-of-2013/#4c2c350f7667Opinion

DEC 23, 2013 @ 03:38 PM 409,474 2 Free Issues of Forbes
President Obama's Top 10 Constitutional Violations Of 2013




Capital Flows , CONTRIBUTOR
Guest commentary curated by Forbes Opinion. Avik Roy, Opinion Editor.
Opinions expressed by Forbes Contributors are their own.
English: President Barack Obama shakes hands w...
(Photo credit: Wikipedia)

By Ilya Shapiro

One of Barack Obama’s chief accomplishments has been to return the Constitution to a central place in our public discourse.

Unfortunately, the president fomented this upswing in civic interest not by talking up the constitutional aspects of his policy agenda, but by blatantly violating the strictures of our founding document. And he’s been most frustrated with the separation of powers, which doesn’t allow him to “fundamentally transform” the country without congressional acquiescence.

But that hasn’t stopped him. In its first term, the Administration launched a “We Can’t Wait” initiative, with senior aide Dan Pfeiffer explaining that “when Congress won’t act, this president will.” And earlier this year, President Obama said in announcing his new economic plans that “I will not allow gridlock, or inaction, or willful indifference to get in our way.”


And so, as we reach the end of another year of political strife that’s fundamentally based on clashing views on the role of government in society, I thought I’d update a list I made two years ago and hereby present President Obama’s top 10 constitutional violations of 2013.

1. Delay of Obamacare’s out-of-pocket caps. The Labor Department announced in February that it was delaying for a year the part of the healthcare law that limits how much people have to spend on their own insurance. This may have been sensible—insurers and employers need time to comply with rapidly changing regulations—but changing the law requires actual legislation.

Recommended by Forbes
2. Delay of Obamacare’s employer mandate. The administration announced via blogpost on the eve of the July 4 holiday that it was delaying the requirement that employers of at least 50 people provide complying insurance or pay a fine. This time it did cite statutory authority, but the cited provisions allow the delay of certain reporting requirements, not of the mandate itself.

3. Delay of Obamacare’s insurance requirements. The famous pledge that “if you like your plan, you can keep it” backfired when insurance companies started cancelling millions of plans that didn’t comply with Obamacare’s requirements. President Obama called a press conference last month to proclaim that people could continue buying non-complying plans in 2014—despite Obamacare’s explicit language to the contrary. He then refused to consider a House-passed bill that would’ve made this action legal.

4. Exemption of Congress from Obamacare. A little-known part of Obamacare requires Congressmen and their staff to get insurance through the new healthcare exchanges, rather than a taxpayer-funded program. In the quiet of August, President Obama directed the Office of Personnel Management to interpret the law to maintain the generous congressional benefits.

5. Expansion of the employer mandate penalty through IRS regulation. Obamacare grants tax credits to people whose employers don’t provide coverage if they buy a plan “through an Exchange established by the State”—and then fines employers for each employee receiving such a subsidy. No tax credits are authorized for residents of states where the exchanges are established by the federal government, as an incentive for states to create exchanges themselves. Because so few (16) states did, however, the IRS issued a rule ignoring that plain text and allowed subsidies (and commensurate fines) for plans coming from “a State Exchange, regional Exchange, subsidiary Exchange, and federally-facilitated Exchange.”

6. Political profiling by the IRS. After seeing a rise in the number of applications for tax-exempt status, the IRS in 2010 compiled a “be on the lookout” (“BOLO”) list to identify organizations engaged in political activities. The list included words such as “Tea Party,” “Patriots,” and “Israel”; subjects such as government spending, debt, or taxes; and activities such as criticizing the government, educating about the Constitution, or challenging Obamacare. The targeting continued through May of this year.

7. Outlandish Supreme Court arguments. Between January 2012 and June 2013, the Supreme Court unanimously rejected the Justice Department’s extreme positions 9 times. The cases ranged from criminal procedure to property rights, religious liberty to immigration, securities regulation to tax law. They had nothing in common other than the government’s view that federal power is virtually unlimited. As a comparison, in the entire Bush and Clinton presidencies, the government suffered 15 and 23 unanimous rulings, respectively.

8. Recess appointments. Last year, President Obama appointed three members of the National Labor Relations Board, as well as the head of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, during what he considered to be a Senate recess. But the Senate was still holding “pro forma” sessions every three days—a technique developed by Sen. Harry Reid to thwart Bush recess appointments. (Meanwhile, the Dodd-Frank Act, which created the CFPB, provides that authority remains with the Treasury Secretary until a director is “confirmed by the Senate.”) In January, the D.C. Circuit held the NLRB appointments to be unconstitutional, which ruling White House spokesman Jay Carney said only applied to “one court, one case, one company.”

9. Assault on free speech and due process on college campuses. Responding to complaints about the University of Montana’s handling of sexual assault claims, the Department of Education’s Office of Civil Rights, in conjunction with the Justice Department, sent the university a letter intended as a national “blueprint” for tackling sexual harassment. The letter urges a crackdown on “unwelcome” speech and requires complaints to be heard in quasi-judicial procedures that deny legal representation, encourage punishment before trial, and convict based on a mere “more likely than not” standard.

Page 1 / 2 Continue


Continued from page 1

10. Mini-DREAM Act. Congress has shamelessly failed to pass any sort of immigration reform, including for the most sympathetic victims of the current non-system, young people who were brought into the country illegally as children. Nonetheless, President Obama, contradicting his own previous statements claiming to lack authority, directed the Department of Homeland Security to issue work and residence permits to the so-called Dreamers. The executive branch undoubtedly has discretion regarding enforcement priorities, but granting de facto green cards goes beyond a decision to defer deportation in certain cases.

It was hard to limit myself to 10 items, of course—Obamacare alone could’ve filled many such lists—but these, in my judgment, represent the chief executive’s biggest dereliction this year of his duty to “preserve, protect, and defend” the Constitution, and to “take care that the law be faithfully executed.”

Alas, things may get worse before they get better. New presidential “counselor” John Podesta’s belief in governance by fiat is no secret; in a 2010 report, he wrote that focusing on executive power “presents a real opportunity for the Obama administration to turn its focus away from a divided Congress and the unappetizing process of making legislative sausage.”

[jimnyc]

That's just the tip of the iceberg AT - don't forget Fast and Furious, Lynch indiscretions, Holder in contempt, Now Obama and his FBI and these FISA warrants, that somehow seem to keep from being fully investigated. The Clinton foundation and then coverage and help for Hillary. The scandals, that Obama said none happened during his terms, were more than aplenty. And some didn't see a whole lot of them, even though they've been covered quite extensively - even if some have avoided criminal charges. So far.

[revelarts]

Same Question came up during Obama Admin.
then Sen. Sessions had the right idea at the time.
He said the president needs to get congressional authorization. so maybe you need to educate him too.
"the ONLY legal authority for the military to actions are the Congress and the President and the law and the constitution."

Leon Panetta, You, Obama Trump and Bush only think it's President... and maybe NATO and the U.N..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qNyNf-R0_Xg

[jimnyc]

I don't care if Sessions or Panetta or Ron Paul or Kucinich - the president, covering a few bases, has the authority via the war powers act, to act with authority for 60 days, then must seek congressional approval or a declaration of war for further hostilities. It's been used - and again as you read - 159 presidents have used it or went to various military actions. No charges. And again, until the SC declares it unconstitutional, it will remain used LEGALLY as it has been and the more than majority agree in congress over the years.

Nighty night.

[aboutime]

That's just the tip of the iceberg AT - don't forget Fast and Furious, Lynch indiscretions, Holder in contempt, Now Obama and his FBI and these FISA warrants, that somehow seem to keep from being fully investigated. The Clinton foundation and then coverage and help for Hillary. The scandals, that Obama said none happened during his terms, were more than aplenty. And some didn't see a whole lot of them, even though they've been covered quite extensively - even if some have avoided criminal charges. So far.


Betcha, the rev will ignore all of what we are saying. He knows Obama lied more than a carpet across the country. But, like Obama...keeps on going back to dig up BUSH to blame him, and distract from the Obama Destruction of America.

[revelarts]

That's just the tip of the iceberg AT - don't forget Fast and Furious, Lynch indiscretions, Holder in contempt, Now Obama and his FBI and these FISA warrants, that somehow seem to keep from being fully investigated. The Clinton foundation and then coverage and help for Hillary. The scandals, that Obama said none happened during his terms, were more than aplenty. And some didn't see a whole lot of them, even though they've been covered quite extensively - even if some have avoided criminal charges. So far.
sheesh.

Ok so have the Supremes called him on any of that it yet Jim?
If Not, BY YOUR STANDARDS, it all must be completely legal and constitutional.
No charges brought against him right? Heck i guess, Hillary is completely innocent too! since she's not in jail. Or even been charged.

But maybe we should call our congressmen to fix it?

:rolleyes:

[jimnyc]

sheesh.

Ok so have the Supremes called him on any of that it yet Jim?
If Not, BY YOUR STANDARDS, it all must be completely legal and constitutional.
No charges brought against him right? Heck i guess, Hillary is completely innocent too! since she's not in jail. Or even been charged.

But maybe we should call our congressmen to fix it?

:rolleyes:

Nope, there is no clear government resolution that allows for their illegal actions. Nice try, but failure meets you once again.

[aboutime]

I don't care if Sessions or Panetta or Ron Paul or Kucinich - the president, covering a few bases, has the authority via the war powers act, to act with authority for 60 days, then must seek congressional approval or a declaration of war for further hostilities. It's been used - and again as you read - 159 presidents have used it or went to various military actions. No charges. And again, until the SC declares it unconstitutional, it will remain used LEGALLY as it has been and the more than majority agree in congress over the years.

Nighty night.


Jim.....you must have forgotten. People like Rev...hate actual, proven facts. It makes all of their brainwashed lies look even dumber.

[revelarts]

Nope, there is no clear government resolution that allows for their illegal actions. Nice try, but failure meets you once again.
uh wrong it does not apply, see previous post
#31 (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?62833-G-W-BUSH-quot-bad-intelligence-quot&p=906302#post906302)

The SCOTUS and congress have simply ignored it.

But I suspect Obama would appeal to the "commerce clause" also known as the "Santa Claus"
Write your congressman or write for office to make changes if you disagree.
Even easier, since you apply the COTUS - have it brought to the supremes and declared unconstitutional. There's a thought!

[revelarts]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xhp24S9yoe0

Freedom Watch: Judge Andrew Napolitano and Rep. Tom Massie (R-KY) discuss how President Trump gained the authorization to bomb Syria and whether or not it is concerning that he bypassed Congress like President Obama before him.

[revelarts]

...
...No administration, dating back to the inception of the War Powers Resolution, has ever fully recognized the measure.

That’s why Trump said his missive to Congress was “consistent with the War Powers Resolution” and not “in compliance with the War Powers Resolution.” Also note that the president told lawmakers he had authority “as Commander in Chief and Chief Executive.” That’s the provision afforded the president in Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution.

At no point did Trump reference the right to “declare war” as afforded Congress under Article I, Section 8. After all, Trump and other presidents are confident they have the power to act under Article II. And so long as Congress is willing to punt on AUMF’s or war declarations, presidents will act.

Ahead of the airstrikes, House Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wis., gave the president a wide berth, regardless of Congress’s powers vested in Article I.

“The existing AUMF gives him the authority he needs to do -- what he may or may not do,” Ryan said.
What the speaker refers to is the 2001 AUMF approved just after the Sept. 11 attacks. Three different presidents have now used that nearly 17-year-old AUMF as ample justification for more than 40 operations around the world...

...Congress fell into this trap of relying on the 2001 authorization because it didn’t have the votes nor spine to approve any other AUMF’s. It’s easy to approve a broad resolution in the frightening moments following 9/11. It requires some pluck to vote for or against an authorization away from the fanfare....

....“No President of the United States, no matter party or political ideology, has the authority to unilaterally start a war. While the president has the authority under the War Powers Act to respond when the U.S. is under attack or in imminent danger, such circumstances did not exist with regard to Syria,” ... “Promoting regional stability, mitigating humanitarian catastrophe and deterring the use of chemical weapons might be important foreign policy goals. But if they are to be pursued with military force, a president must first seek congressional authorization.” said Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah.


“Bombing a country is an act of war,” said Rep. John Garamendi, D-Calif. “The recourse is for Congress to get enough courage to obey the Constitution.”

“Congress has kind of shirked its responsibility,” said Sen. Jeff Flake, R-Ariz....


http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/04/21/trumps-missile-attack-in-syria-revisits-long-standing-washington-questions-about-war-powers-authority.html


the Constitution AND the war powers resolution are clear...
But Congress and the Courts have to find a spine.

[jimnyc]

Always gotta wonder when I read an article and it opens and closes with:

Paid Content
This content is from our sponsor. Fox News editorial was not involved in the creation of this content

[revelarts]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=9&v=nwUAbPB20mw (https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=9&v=nwUAbPB20mw)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nwUAbPB20mw
Former Reagan economic Advisor
Talks about economics 1st then conversation slides into him trying his best to explain
Chance Syria used chemical weapons were zero to none: David Stockman 4:30 mark




...
...No administration, dating back to the inception of the War Powers Resolution, has ever fully recognized the measure.

That’s why Trump said his missive to Congress was “consistent with the War Powers Resolution” and not “in compliance with the War Powers Resolution.” Also note that the president told lawmakers he had authority “as Commander in Chief and Chief Executive.” That’s the provision afforded the president in Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution.

At no point did Trump reference the right to “declare war” as afforded Congress under Article I, Section 8. After all, Trump and other presidents are confident they have the power to act under Article II. And so long as Congress is willing to punt on AUMF’s or war declarations, presidents will act.

Ahead of the airstrikes, House Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wis., gave the president a wide berth, regardless of Congress’s powers vested in Article I.

“The existing AUMF gives him the authority he needs to do -- what he may or may not do,” Ryan said.
What the speaker refers to is the 2001 AUMF approved just after the Sept. 11 attacks. Three different presidents have now used that nearly 17-year-old AUMF as ample justification for more than 40 operations around the world...

...Congress fell into this trap of relying on the 2001 authorization because it didn’t have the votes nor spine to approve any other AUMF’s. It’s easy to approve a broad resolution in the frightening moments following 9/11. It requires some pluck to vote for or against an authorization away from the fanfare....

....“No President of the United States, no matter party or political ideology, has the authority to unilaterally start a war. While the president has the authority under the War Powers Act to respond when the U.S. is under attack or in imminent danger, such circumstances did not exist with regard to Syria,” ... “Promoting regional stability, mitigating humanitarian catastrophe and deterring the use of chemical weapons might be important foreign policy goals. But if they are to be pursued with military force, a president must first seek congressional authorization.” said Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah.


“Bombing a country is an act of war,” said Rep. John Garamendi, D-Calif. “The recourse is for Congress to get enough courage to obey the Constitution.”

“Congress has kind of shirked its responsibility,” said Sen. Jeff Flake, R-Ariz....


http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/04/21/trumps-missile-attack-in-syria-revisits-long-standing-washington-questions-about-war-powers-authority.html


the Constitution AND the war powers resolution are clear...
But Congress and the Courts have to find a spine.

[Abbey Marie]

Didn't want to derail the other thread.

but,
Bush "believed" and told the world that Iraq had and was making WMDs and the U.S. attacked on false premises.

Trump "believes" and told the world that Syria used Chemical Weapons and he attacked Syria. Is it worth questioning the presidents the assertions in this era. Is it worth getting firm confirmation BEFORE we attack another nation again?

As did several other international intelligence agencies. Including Israel’s
Iraq did have Chemical and biological weapons. They used them repeatedly against Iran for years. The fact that we didn’t find them only means we didn’t find them.

[jimnyc]

I moved the above post to here where we have current discussion ongoing about Syria and the legality behind things as of last evening, and this morning. No need for multiple threads running.

[Abbey Marie]

I moved the above post to here where we have current discussion ongoing about Syria and the legality behind things as of last evening, and this morning. No need for multiple threads running.

What?!

;)

[jimnyc]

What?!

;)

Confusing enough when threads grow longer, and you open multiple pages with multiple members posting videos and such, it can drag ya down. No need having 2 of those on the same subject causing my computer to want to punch me in my own face. :)

[revelarts]

I moved the above post to here where we have current discussion ongoing about Syria and the legality behind things as of last evening, and this morning. No need for multiple threads running.

your board your call.

But the I started this thread not to derail the Syria thread with GW Bush talk. but comments came in about Syria so i replied.
But anyone coming to the broad that only views the title would miss the "discussion ongoing about Syria" becasue it looks mainly historical "GW Bush 'Bad intelligence".

It seemed to me a good move to move the conversation back where it started and back under a title that made more sense concerning the content.

Also is there a rule against 2 threads having similar content?

[jimnyc]

your board your call.

But the I started this thread not to derail the Syria thread with GW Bush talk. but comments came in about Syria so i replied.
But anyone coming to the broad that only views the title would miss the "discussion ongoing about Syria" becasue it looks mainly historical "GW Bush 'Bad intelligence".

It seemed to me a good move to move the conversation back where it started and back under a title that made more sense concerning the content.

Also is there a rule against 2 threads having similar content?

Oh jeez, now you're going to whine about being able to post whatever the fuck you want? No, no rule, just common fucking sense. No need for multiple threads on the same subject. Threads grow and evolve often from one subject to another. They were BOTH your subjects, Bush and now Syria, so I don't see an issue with it continuing in the very thread it's being discussed. Why do others want to come here, and then opening an older thread, and now reading through pages of older content, to get to your new post? We HAVE an open thread where YOU are posting that very stuff. And now you'll whine because I thought it best to keep the same discussion in the same thread.

Why am I explaining myself to you?

It makes sense, deal with it.

[jimnyc]

your board your call.

But the I started this thread not to derail the Syria thread with GW Bush talk. but comments came in about Syria so i replied.
But anyone coming to the broad that only views the title would miss the "discussion ongoing about Syria" becasue it looks mainly historical "GW Bush 'Bad intelligence".

It seemed to me a good move to move the conversation back where it started and back under a title that made more sense concerning the content.

Also is there a rule against 2 threads having similar content?

AND, in the rules from day one:

* Additionally, taking a particular post and pasting it in various threads as a means of repeating is considered "spamming" the board and offending posts will likely be moderated and at the discretion of staff can be thread banned or board banned based on offending members history.

While yours isn't the same post, it's the same subject and content. Deal with it, we had this covered.

[jimnyc]

Didn't want to derail the other thread.

but,
Bush "believed" and told the world that Iraq had and was making WMDs and the U.S. attacked on false premises.

Trump "believes" and told the world that Syria used Chemical Weapons and he attacked Syria. Is it worth questioning the presidents the assertions in this era. Is it worth getting firm confirmation BEFORE we attack another nation again?

So you didn't want to derail the OTHER thread - and yet here is where the discussion HERE starts talking about Syria, and legalities. Then pages later, you start posting in the other thread again, with the SAME things we are discussing here onto the 4th page. So I move it back here instead of 'reverting' back to an older thread. Sorry, YOUR doing, and here we are. But there is NO NEED to be discussing the same thing in multiple threads.

[jimnyc]

This is your little thread, Rev. Keep it in here. Don't go to other threads with said experiments to disrupt them with your crap because I disagreed with you. Ruin your own threads, you ain't doing it to mine. Just like with Tailfins, we're not going to sit and tolerate members claiming to run "experiments" of some sort on other members. You don't like what other members state - then QUOTE them in the fucking threads where the shit is stated. Is this rocket science?

[revelarts]

As did several other international intelligence agencies. Including Israel’s
Iraq did have Chemical and biological weapons. They used them repeatedly against Iran for years. The fact that we didn’t find them only means we didn’t find them.

"The fact that we didn’t find them only means we didn’t find them."
Bush said it was "FAILED intelligence", not just that we didn't find them.

the British had an inquiry and found that some of their intel had in fact been "fixed" and messaged to push for war.
several insiders confessed to it and testified to witnessing it. (not to mention the downing street memo)
So what they SAID was there some KNEW was not there.
many people From German intelligence the BND (and our own head of CIA in Germany) said they were SHOCKED to hear the president, the VP, and Colan Powel use intel they KNEW was BS.
a Pentagon insiders said they tried to correct the OLD, outdated and bad intel going out the door to the CiC but they were shut down, and told THIS is what "they" want, they apparently being the VP and Rumsfeld.
A lot of countries had various intel, the problem was much of it was Bad and some folks refused to be corrected and told that it was bad. Plus some people knowingly EMBRACED the bad intel to promote going to war.

so it's more than "we didn't find them"
Many people KNEW that some of the major points of intel about world trheatening WMDs and mushroom clouds presented was false. and they WOULD not find it becasue it wasn't there.

[jimnyc]

As did several other international intelligence agencies. Including Israel’s
Iraq did have Chemical and biological weapons. They used them repeatedly against Iran for years. The fact that we didn’t find them only means we didn’t find them.

As I wrote earlier, Abs, we did find more than enough though. We found what some want to ignore, because they claim it was outdated, but yet it wasn't weaponized - which allows for it to last MUCH longer. This has been posted many a time, but folks like to ignore what doesn't suit their agenda. Not to mention the TONS of chemical weapons that WERE found and WERE accounted for prior to the war, that everyone admits to knowing about, that admit to it later being missing and unaccounted for. This has ALWAYS been the case, and to date, has never been resolved. And again, they SAW them and bagged and tagged them IN Iraq. So this cannot be debated.

[Abbey Marie]

"The fact that we didn’t find them only means we didn’t find them."
Bush said it was "FAILED intelligence", not just that we didn't find them.

the British had an inquiry and found that some of their intel had in fact been "fixed" and messaged to push for war.
several insiders confessed to it and testified to witnessing it. (not to mention the downing street memo)
So what they SAID was there some KNEW was not there.
many people From German intelligence the BND (and our own head of CIA in Germany) said they were SHOCKED to hear the president, the VP, and Colan Powel use intel they KNEW was BS.
a Pentagon insiders said they tried to correct the OLD, outdated and bad intel going out the door to the CiC but they were shut down, and told THIS is what "they" want, they apparently being the VP and Rumsfeld.
A lot of countries had various intel, the problem was much of it was Bad and some folks refused to be corrected and told that it was bad. Plus some people knowingly EMBRACED the bad intel to promote going to war.

so it's more than "we didn't find them"
Many people KNEW that some of the major points of intel about world trheatening WMDs and mushroom clouds presented was false. and they WOULD not find it becasue it wasn't there.

You have missed the genius of my quoted line, apparently.
If the intelligence “failed” it failed for several extremely talented covert agencies. You really believe that? That should tell you something about what failed really means. Information, like (WMDs) is fluid. You do the best you can with what you have at the time. And as Jim noted, we did find stuff.

I can understand feeling that we shouldn’t have gone into Iraq at all. But don’t blame it on multi-nation failed intelligence. It makes a handy scapegoat for President Bush’s (and your) Monday morning quarterbacking though, doesn’t it?

[revelarts]

This is your little thread, Rev. Keep it in here. Don't go to other threads with said experiments to disrupt them with your crap because I disagreed with you. Ruin your own threads, you ain't doing it to mine. Just like with Tailfins, we're not going to sit and tolerate members claiming to run "experiments" of some sort on other members. You don't like what other members state - then QUOTE them in the fucking threads where the shit is stated. Is this rocket science

This is exactly how "some" of the folks actually look when they disagree with anything and everything government:


...But IS funny that you have always leaped from Bush and now to Trump, and pretty much never outright went after, or go after Obama. Pretty much only when someone calls you on it as I do now. And then we'll get the obligatory "Well yeah, he was no better" and that's about the end of that.


So just to be clear do YOU have to quote me at all "disagreeing with anything and everything government"
or are you allowed to negatively generalize my POV anywhere on the board. You were referring to MY comments in other threads disagreeing with EVERYTHING in gov't correct?

But what’s weirder , you came to THIS thread to complain about my Post IN ANOTHER thread.
so it's Ok for you to do that, just not for me.
Since you BLOCKED from that thread i guess that's one way to let me know WHY i suppose.


"But IS funny that you have always leaped from Bush and now to Trump,"
Got any EXACT quotes to back this up... from this thread jim?
or are you referring to threads OUTSIDE of this one Jim?

""Well yeah, he was no better""
Is that an EXACT quote from me Jim?... from this Thread?
Or is did you just make that up and put words in my mouth?
Don't you know how to use the quote function?

But i have to ask now, Are you even allowed to QUOTE me from other threads? or is it just me that has the rule that if:
"You don't like what other members state - then QUOTE them in the fucking threads where the shit is stated." ?

Since you're not quoting me exactly And you're bringing up stuff from other threads you CLAIM i always say, here in my "little thread"
Should you be banned from this one?

Look, I'm not sure what I'm suppose to do .
If i quote you or others EXACTLY you're pissed, If I generalize others views honesty and ON TOPIC you're Pissed. Looks like to me your just generally pissed.
And Really it just seems to me you got no rational defense for some of your piss poor POVs so you're attacking me with your power as the BOARD ADMIN. Seems to me, if you were being fair, you'd recuse yourself and let others admin my comments becasue you've obviously got issues with me.

but hey it's your board dude.
No problem,

[jimnyc]

It's early in the day, but I'm not putting up with your shit. Start your own place if you want to be vindictive, bitch and moan about the board and everything Jim. Fuck off.

[jimnyc]

You have missed the genius of my quoted line, apparently.
If the intelligence “failed” it failed for several extremely talented covert agencies. You really believe that? That should tell you something about what failed really means. Information, like (WMDs) is fluid. You do the best you can with what you have at the time. And as Jim noted, we did find stuff.

I can understand feeling that we shouldn’t have gone into Iraq at all. But don’t blame it on multi-nation failed intelligence. It makes a handy scapegoat for President Bush’s (and your) Monday morning quarterbacking though, doesn’t it?

Of course a ton of the facts never really panned out either. So they ain't perfect either, but I don't think anyone ever said that. I don't think they lied for oil, I think they got shit wrong AND a "ton" of stuff magically disappeared. But we can't ignore the literally tons that were accounted for. We can't ignore stashes of weapons that were never weaponized and further ignore them as we claim they are too old. And then of course many reports of movements into Syria, what a shock!

[Gunny]

Ok, constitutional just like Obamacare and DACCA and everything else he did.
the courts haven't dealt any of that either so.
everything Obama did MUST be constitutional as well.

So if we have to wait for the Supremes to be brought in then ANYTHING the presidents do, As long as the SCOTUS lets them do it ,is OK by you.
fine.
Obama and Trump and Bush are all in the CLEAR.
at least that's an fairly honest answer.
kind of hypocritical since you've claimed many of Obama's actions unconstitutional as well as I, but it is fairly honest.
At least more honest than claiming that the wording of the laws and COTUS says Attacking Syria or Obama's immigration Executive orders, spying, killing etc align with the text and spirit of the laws and constitution.Any time you need to be schooled on the Middle East, rev, try going to the ME Forum right here, live, on this very board and start educating yourself.

Get over yourself.

[aboutime]

https://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2014/10/16/new-york-times-reports-wmd-found-in-iraq

AND, from of all places...CNN???
The U.S. government suppressed information about chemical weapons it found in Iraq, and several servicemembers were injured by their exposure to those weapons, The New York Times is reporting.https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/10/14/world/middleeast/us-casualties-of-iraq-chemical-weapons.html

https://www.cnn.com/2014/10/15/us/iraq-chemical-weapons/index.html