President Obama Seeks Congressional Approval On Syria

LadyJazzer wrote:

FredHayek wrote: What do taxes have to do with attacks on foreign nations? Here let me help you out of the weeds.

What does Reagan and Grenada have to do with Obama, Syria, and asking the Congress to fulfill its duties?... Other than another excursion for YOU into the weeks of "They did it too"...

Reagan worked without congressional approval. Obama has worked without congressional approval. Now BHO is seeking congressional approval. Parrallel lines.

Kinna off topic. This is a great movie.

[youtube:1q29uiyd][/youtube:1q29uiyd]

Blazer Bob wrote:

Gee, you left out the part about the fact that it was based on lies, cooked-intelligence, there WERE NO WMD's, no "yellow-cake uranium", and it was unpaid for...

Imagine my surprise...

Certainly the president has the power, and the ability to delegate same, to act when circumstances permit no delay, as was the case when Somali pirates had taken hostages that were citizens of one of the States. Such is not the case with Syria. The president could easily have gone to Congress anytime over the course of the last year and asked for authorization to act in that theater if/when it became necessary to do so, as his predecessor did with regards to Afghanistan and Iraq. He chose not to do that, for whatever reason, which, IMNTBHO, does not mean he gets to act without the approval of Congress now. There is no immediate threat to either the security of the Union or to any of the States' citizens posed by Syria's dictator gassing his own citizens. There is time to seek approval for any adventure into Syria, even if it means exercising his power to call Congress into session solely for that purpose. Doing so doesn't show weakness from my perspective, it shows a respect for the Constitution and the rule of law, something quite welcome for a change from this president.

LadyJazzer wrote:

Blazer Bob wrote:

Gee, you left out the part about the fact that it was based on lies, cooked-intelligence, there WERE NO WMD's, and it was unpaid for...

Imagine my surprise...

Name me one war that was ever paid for when it was being fought Jazzer. Wars are always fought with borrowed money with the bill coming due later. Why you would expect anything different from the last president than any leader in all of recorded history remains curious to me. Was WWII paid for at the time it was being fought? How about Viet Nam? Korea? The War of Independence? The War Between the States? WWI? Spanish-American War? War of 1812? Name me one war that wasn't financed with borrowed funds in the history of our Union. Just one will do.

And then we have this Randroid, (who thinks he wants to run for President in 2016!!) YAY!!! :pop

Rand Paul Praises Assad (VIDEO)

WASHINGTON - Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) on Sunday portrayed the current conflict in Syria as one between the government of President Bashar Al Assad, who Paul said "has protected Christians for a number of decades," and "Islamic rebels," who Paul said "have been attacking Christians" and are aligned with Al Qaeda.

"I think the Islamic rebels winning is a bad idea for the Christians, and all of a sudden we'll have another Islamic state where Christians are persecuted," Paul said on NBC's "Meet the Press."

Paul, a first-term senator and vocal opponent of U.S. intervention overseas, including U.S. foreign aid, said the U.S. should pursue a negotiated settlement where "Assad is gone, but some of the same people [from Assad's regime] remain stable," because, he said, "that would also be good for the Christians.

"

PLEASE....Jus' keep doin' what yer doin'....

But, but, but....Then we have these GOTP'ers...:

McCain: Voting Against Obama On Syria Could Be 'Catastrophic'


Peter King: GOP Isolationists 'Damaging To The Nation'

So, which of the GOTP/Hawks/Neo-Cons/Never-met-a-war-we-didn't-like Crowd are we supposed to believe? I'm so confused....

Hilary Clinton was praising Assad a couple years ago as a reformer.

It will be interesting to see if the Republicans vote this down more to spite Barack than wanting to show Assad, Putin, & Iran to watch themselves.

And Rand's remarks? I know LJ wouldn't mind seeing Syrian Christians suffer but the Assad regimes for decades had courted the Christian minority and protected it from the more fundamentalist Islamic sects. I know some people like to think everything is black and white, but there are many greys in Syria and to show Assad as only a villain would be wrong.

And Ronald Reagan was providing illegal weapons to Iran...

How far back would you like to go to use an irrelevant reference to "They did it too", Fred?.... I'm your huckleberry... I can play the game as far back as you'd like to go...

Only irrelevant in your eyes.
Rand is just wanting to bring information to both sides of the debate.
If Assad loses, Syrian Christians could be facing genocide. But you make his remarks sound out of line. (Maybe because your handlers told you to think that way.)
Maybe you should go back to talking about "W" and his illegal wars.