G W BUSH "bad intelligence"

[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?

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

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]

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...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


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...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.