In 2007, Senator Joe Biden repeatedly threatened to impeach President George W. Bush should he attack Iran without congressional authorization. Senator Obama agreed that Bush did not have the power to order a strike on Iran.
Now I'm gonna sit back and watch the SS lawyer twins explain this away as total bullshit.
Let us know when an attack happens against Syria without Congressional approval, and we'll have that talk.
there is no stated goal. unstated goal is keep the conflict at a stalemate and deliver on "red line" threat that obama surely wishes he hadn't issued. he didn't think bashar had the balls. now you've basically got a shadow conflict of what is in essence an extrapolation on saudi/iranian (or sunni/shia) power struggle. money, military, religion, influence. and it's all about money to the u.s. the middle eastern regional powers have much more of a stake in it in terms of religion and governing style. the entire middle east is completely fucked forever because of western oil money and neverending jockeying for influence. we will bomb some airplane hangar and ride the fuck out on a moral high horse in a calculated political maneuver and this shit will continue. obama is staying out of it as much as he can and still save face.
In 2007, Senator Joe Biden repeatedly threatened to impeach President George W. Bush should he attack Iran without congressional authorization. Senator Obama agreed that Bush did not have the power to order a strike on Iran.
Now I'm gonna sit back and watch the SS lawyer twins explain this away as total bullshit.
As usual with you, it's apples and oranges. Iran wasn't gassing its own people. Iran hadn't provoked a million refugees into leaving the country. Bush had started a pointless ground war based on lies in Iraq, and there were rumblings about doing the same thing in Iran. I know in your black & white view of the world distinctions barely matter, but the comparison is weak.
Of course Biden had no way of pushing impeachment anyway, so he was bullshitting. Impeachment doesn't start in the Senate.
there is no stated goal. unstated goal is keep the conflict at a stalemate and deliver on "red line" threat that obama surely wishes he hadn't issued. he didn't think bashar had the balls. now you've basically got a shadow conflict of what is in essence an extrapolation on saudi/iranian (or sunni/shia) power struggle. money, military, religion, influence. and it's all about money to the u.s. the middle eastern regional powers have much more of a stake in it in terms of religion and governing style. the entire middle east is completely fucked forever because of western oil money and neverending jockeying for influence. we will bomb some airplane hangar and ride the fuck out on a moral high horse in a calculated political maneuver and this shit will continue. obama is staying out of it as much as he can and still save face.
there is no stated goal. unstated goal is keep the conflict at a stalemate and deliver on "red line" threat that obama surely wishes he hadn't issued. he didn't think bashar had the balls. now you've basically got a shadow conflict of what is in essence an extrapolation on saudi/iranian (or sunni/shia) power struggle. money, military, religion, influence. and it's all about money to the u.s. the middle eastern regional powers have much more of a stake in it in terms of religion and governing style. the entire middle east is completely fucked forever because of western oil money and neverending jockeying for influence. we will bomb some airplane hangar and ride the fuck out on a moral high horse in a calculated political maneuver and this shit will continue. obama is staying out of it as much as he can and still save face.
OK - well you covered a lot of my blah blah blah lol
The US and Britain encourage the anti-Assad rebels and then realize they are nowhere nearly as unified as they had what? Hoped? Imagined?
I am asking in half-seriousness here, who does their fucking research?
Financial aid is still coming in, but both the Americans and British have backed off (openly) supplying arms.
To your point, even if Assad was to go, Syrians are going to be left with long-standing religious and ethnic conflicts. There are already people coming into Syria to join rebels along their respective factions...what is to say the conflict won't spill out into Jordan, Lebanon, Iraq?
Choosing talks over bombs means the US having to sit down with, among others, Iran, Russia, Lebanon/Hezbollah, not really a lot of cooperative warm and fuzzy feelings between said parties.
right, well democracy and freedom are cool ideals, bro. until you realize that the only things holding the middle east together are arbitrary territorial boundaries and autocratic power alliances that keep the citizenry immobilized. the ethnic majority of many countries in the region is controlled by a fractious minority with money, international support, and political knowhow. look at iraq! or egypt. it's absolutely insane to think democracy can flourish in these places by just imagining or hoping for it. everything ain't for everybody. /lito
there is no stated goal. unstated goal is keep the conflict at a stalemate and deliver on "red line" threat that obama surely wishes he hadn't issued. he didn't think bashar had the balls. now you've basically got a shadow conflict of what is in essence an extrapolation on saudi/iranian (or sunni/shia) power struggle. money, military, religion, influence. and it's all about money to the u.s. the middle eastern regional powers have much more of a stake in it in terms of religion and governing style. the entire middle east is completely fucked forever because of western oil money and neverending jockeying for influence. we will bomb some airplane hangar and ride the fuck out on a moral high horse in a calculated political maneuver and this shit will continue. obama is staying out of it as much as he can and still save face.
If the Syrian government gassed its own people (I'm prepared to wait for the UN to make a determination), in violation of their own commitment under the 1925 Geneva Protocol, doesn't the world have to do something? Can we really just sit back and do nothing?
Let's not forget there were a lot of innocent people that were killed.
right, well democracy and freedom are cool ideals, bro. until you realize that the only things holding the middle east together are arbitrary territorial boundaries and autocratic power alliances that keep the citizenry immobilized. the ethnic majority of many countries in the region is controlled by a fractious minority with money, international support, and political knowhow. look at iraq! or egypt. it's absolutely insane to think democracy can flourish in these places by just imagining or hoping for it. everything ain't for everybody. /lito
I think democracy can flourish there, however, it seems our politicians have sold us on the idea that it can happen overnight.
If the Syrian government gassed its own people (I'm prepared to wait for the UN to make a determination), in violation of their own commitment under the 1925 Geneva Protocol, doesn't the world have to do something? Can we really just sit back and do nothing?
Let's not forget there were a lot of innocent people that were killed.
my man, we are responsible for the deaths of innocent people in the middle east every single day of the fucking year. painting ourselves as crusaders for humanity is pure politics. it's exactly the narrative they are pushing down your throat. by the way, the geneva protocol applies to wartime. if bashar dropped sarin on libya, maybe. otherwise, it's a straw to be grasped at for justification when the real reasoning is that we will lose credibility after obama's red line bullshit.
p.s. dropping a couple bombs is not going to change dynamics on the ground at all. that's the whole point. do nothing under the auspice of doing something.
If the Syrian government gassed its own people (I'm prepared to wait for the UN to make a determination), in violation of their own commitment under the 1925 Geneva Protocol, doesn't the world have to do something? Can we really just sit back and do nothing?
Let's not forget there were a lot of innocent people that were killed.
my man, we are responsible for the deaths of innocent people in the middle east every single day of the fucking year. painting ourselves as crusaders for humanity is pure politics. it's exactly the narrative they are pushing down your throat. by the way, the geneva protocol applies to wartime. if bashar dropped sarin on libya, maybe. otherwise, it's a straw to be grasped at for justification when the real reasoning is that we will lose credibility after obama's red line bullshit.
2. In what circumstances, if any, would the president have constitutional authority to bomb Iran without seeking a use-of-force authorization from Congress? (Specifically, what about the strategic bombing of suspected nuclear sites -- a situation that does not involve stopping an IMMINENT threat?)
The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.
If the Syrian government gassed its own people (I'm prepared to wait for the UN to make a determination), in violation of their own commitment under the 1925 Geneva Protocol, doesn't the world have to do something? Can we really just sit back and do nothing?
Let's not forget there were a lot of innocent people that were killed.
my man, we are responsible for the deaths of innocent people in the middle east every single day of the fucking year. painting ourselves as crusaders for humanity is pure politics. it's exactly the narrative they are pushing down your throat. by the way, the geneva protocol applies to wartime. if bashar dropped sarin on libya, maybe. otherwise, it's a straw to be grasped at for justification when the real reasoning is that we will lose credibility after obama's red line bullshit.
That may be so, but inaction in the face of the use of chemical weapons on innocent people, if that occurred, is not acceptable to me.
b/w
the 1925 Geneva Protocol prohibits the use of chemical weapons, period. There's no diiferentiation between external and internal conflict.
bonus beat: I appreciate your thoughtful response.
The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.
That ignores the fact that the Presidency has been given this power - and has used it time and time again - under acts passed by the Congress.
And there's a big difference between a strike and an extended war. No one refers to Reagan's bombing of Libya as a "war." No one refers to the raid in Pakistan that killed bin Laden as a "war."
The Constitution is crystal clear about the impeachment process.
You should check it out sometime.
ME?? I'm not threatening to impeach anyone...maybe the VP should have.
Yeah, you. Biden knows he couldn't have, as a Senator, and he knows why.
You don't. Yeah, you.
I'd also ask you to provide the text of Biden's threat, as opposed to some writer's summary of what he allegedly said. Also, where did you get that blurb?
man your selective moral outrage re: chemical weapons just seems arbitrary. it's all good until they bring out the gas?! makes no sense. and i'd encourage you to re-read the protocol. it applies to wartime, which by definition involves more than one nation. it also is nothing more than an excuse and not worth the debate.
The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.
That ignores the fact that the Presidency has been given this power - and has used it time and time again - under acts passed by the Congress.
And there's a big difference between a strike and an extended war. No one refers to Reagan's bombing of Libya as a "war." No one refers to the raid in Pakistan that killed bin Laden as a "war."
man your selective moral outrage re: chemical weapons just seems arbitrary. it's all good until they bring out the gas?! makes no sense. and i'd encourage you to re-read the protocol. it applies to wartime, which by definition involves more than one nation. it also is nothing more than an excuse and not worth the debate.
Selective? Arbitrary?
International law is clear.
I encourage you to read later legal interpretation of the Protocol.
For example:the 1995 International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia and International Committee of the Red Cross c. 2005
The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.
That ignores the fact that the Presidency has been given this power - and has used it time and time again - under acts passed by the Congress.
And there's a big difference between a strike and an extended war. No one refers to Reagan's bombing of Libya as a "war." No one refers to the raid in Pakistan that killed bin Laden as a "war."
The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.
international law is clear! hahahaha. it's also clear we only adhere to it when it's convenient. it's even clearer that the definition of "at war" has become completely fraught. we're not "at war" with pakistan or yemen but we're dropping bombs on them. doesn't change what's in black and white on a 100 year old piece of paper (which, again, is nothing but a red herring when we've already shown our willingness to fly in the face of established protocol). your moral compass has been defined by rhetoric and propaganda. and now you must deal when someone calls you on it. later!
The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.
That ignores the fact that the Presidency has been given this power - and has used it time and time again - under acts passed by the Congress.
And there's a big difference between a strike and an extended war. No one refers to Reagan's bombing of Libya as a "war." No one refers to the raid in Pakistan that killed bin Laden as a "war."
The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.
You're pulling one sentence out and ignoring both the fuller context of the Act and the way it has been interpreted for 40 years.
In other words, you're being silly and showing how poorly informed you are.
international law is clear! hahahaha. it's also clear we only adhere to it when it's convenient. it's even clearer that the definition of "at war" has become completely fraught. we're not "at war" with pakistan or yemen but we're dropping bombs on them. doesn't change what's in black and white on a 100 year old piece of paper (which, again, is nothing but a red herring when we've already shown our willingness to fly in the face of established protocol). your moral compass has been defined by rhetoric and propaganda. and now you must deal when someone calls you on it. later!
When somone of consequence "calls me on it", I'll deal with it.
Right now, what's happening is someone that doesn't understand what the Geneva Protocol means, that would be you, is not making much sense.
The Constitution is crystal clear about the impeachment process.
You should check it out sometime.
ME?? I'm not threatening to impeach anyone...maybe the VP should have.
Yeah, you. Biden knows he couldn't have, as a Senator, and he knows why.
You don't. Yeah, you.
I'd also ask you to provide the text of Biden's threat, as opposed to some writer's summary of what he allegedly said. Also, where did you get that blurb?
Like Biden, you're absolutely full of shit....where did I say anything that would suggest I don't know the Impeachment process.....I didn't, you are either imagining it in your secret mind garden or purposefully putting words in my mouth that never existed...typical Lawyer bullshit.
If Biden knows what you have read his mind and purport that he knows he is just as full of shit as any other politician on either side of the fence....it's just that you are either blind to it or blindly defend one side as if they are above contempt.
The idiots on the Right who have or will threaten to Impeach the current President if he goes to War without Congressional approval will be just as full of shit.....I'm able to recognize this...you are not.....at least your Left wing buddy bot can admit Biden was just full of shit....you can't. And your transparency of being a Demobot is especially comical when you accuse Harvey of being the same for Ron Paul...your cursing of him is the cherry on top.
As far as Biden's exact words, if you were really interested you could find them yourself but since you want to play some lame courtroom game where you feel you are in the right as long as you put the burden of proof on your opponent...here you go.
" And I want to make it clear, I want it on the record, and I want to make it clear, if he does, as chairman of the foreign relations committee and former chair of the judiciary committee, I will move to impeach him."
You will also find a Chris Mattews interview where he stands behind this statement and repeats....
So I got together and brought a group of constitutional scholars together to write a piece that I'm going to deliver to the whole United State Senate pointing out the President has no constitutional authority...to take this nation to war against a county of 70 million people unless we're attacked or unless there is proof we are about to be attacked. And if he does, if he does, I would move to impeach him.
So if he knows, as you claim, that he had no authority to start Impeachment proceedings, he's just full of shit....but hey, he's YOUR liar that's full of shit, so that's OK.
Comments
Let us know when an attack happens against Syria without Congressional approval, and we'll have that talk.
Until then, you're just flapping your gums.
As usual with you, it's apples and oranges. Iran wasn't gassing its own people. Iran hadn't provoked a million refugees into leaving the country. Bush had started a pointless ground war based on lies in Iraq, and there were rumblings about doing the same thing in Iran. I know in your black & white view of the world distinctions barely matter, but the comparison is weak.
Of course Biden had no way of pushing impeachment anyway, so he was bullshitting. Impeachment doesn't start in the Senate.
I think this is basically how it will play out.
OK - well you covered a lot of my blah blah blah lol
The US and Britain encourage the anti-Assad rebels and then realize they are nowhere nearly as unified as they had what? Hoped? Imagined?
I am asking in half-seriousness here, who does their fucking research?
Financial aid is still coming in, but both the Americans and British have backed off (openly) supplying arms.
To your point, even if Assad was to go, Syrians are going to be left with long-standing religious and ethnic conflicts. There are already people coming into Syria to join rebels along their respective factions...what is to say the conflict won't spill out into Jordan, Lebanon, Iraq?
Choosing talks over bombs means the US having to sit down with, among others, Iran, Russia, Lebanon/Hezbollah, not really a lot of cooperative warm and fuzzy feelings between said parties.
If the Syrian government gassed its own people (I'm prepared to wait for the UN to make a determination), in violation of their own commitment under the 1925 Geneva Protocol, doesn't the world have to do something? Can we really just sit back and do nothing?
Let's not forget there were a lot of innocent people that were killed.
I think democracy can flourish there, however, it seems our politicians have sold us on the idea that it can happen overnight.
The Constitution is crystal clear about the impeachment process.
You should check it out sometime.
my man, we are responsible for the deaths of innocent people in the middle east every single day of the fucking year. painting ourselves as crusaders for humanity is pure politics. it's exactly the narrative they are pushing down your throat. by the way, the geneva protocol applies to wartime. if bashar dropped sarin on libya, maybe. otherwise, it's a straw to be grasped at for justification when the real reasoning is that we will lose credibility after obama's red line bullshit.
ME?? I'm not threatening to impeach anyone...maybe the VP should have.
us/sarin/iran-iraq war
He was also laying groundwork for his 2008 campaign, and providing some cover for his earlier vote authorizing Dumbya to go to war in Iraq.
So? Again, I don't get what point you think you're making here. Your gotcha moments never seem to work out.
That may be so, but inaction in the face of the use of chemical weapons on innocent people, if that occurred, is not acceptable to me.
b/w
the 1925 Geneva Protocol prohibits the use of chemical weapons, period. There's no diiferentiation between external and internal conflict.
bonus beat: I appreciate your thoughtful response.
That ignores the fact that the Presidency has been given this power - and has used it time and time again - under acts passed by the Congress.
And there's a big difference between a strike and an extended war. No one refers to Reagan's bombing of Libya as a "war." No one refers to the raid in Pakistan that killed bin Laden as a "war."
http://cwx.prenhall.com/bookbind/pubbooks/dye4/medialib/docs/warpower.htm
Yeah, you. Biden knows he couldn't have, as a Senator, and he knows why.
You don't. Yeah, you.
I'd also ask you to provide the text of Biden's threat, as opposed to some writer's summary of what he allegedly said. Also, where did you get that blurb?
War Powers Resolution of 1973, anyone?
Selective? Arbitrary?
International law is clear.
I encourage you to read later legal interpretation of the Protocol.
For example:the 1995 International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia and International Committee of the Red Cross c. 2005
You're pulling one sentence out and ignoring both the fuller context of the Act and the way it has been interpreted for 40 years.
In other words, you're being silly and showing how poorly informed you are.
But then I already knew that.
When somone of consequence "calls me on it", I'll deal with it.
Right now, what's happening is someone that doesn't understand what the Geneva Protocol means, that would be you, is not making much sense.
Like Biden, you're absolutely full of shit....where did I say anything that would suggest I don't know the Impeachment process.....I didn't, you are either imagining it in your secret mind garden or purposefully putting words in my mouth that never existed...typical Lawyer bullshit.
If Biden knows what you have read his mind and purport that he knows he is just as full of shit as any other politician on either side of the fence....it's just that you are either blind to it or blindly defend one side as if they are above contempt.
The idiots on the Right who have or will threaten to Impeach the current President if he goes to War without Congressional approval will be just as full of shit.....I'm able to recognize this...you are not.....at least your Left wing buddy bot can admit Biden was just full of shit....you can't. And your transparency of being a Demobot is especially comical when you accuse Harvey of being the same for Ron Paul...your cursing of him is the cherry on top.
As far as Biden's exact words, if you were really interested you could find them yourself but since you want to play some lame courtroom game where you feel you are in the right as long as you put the burden of proof on your opponent...here you go.
" And I want to make it clear, I want it on the record, and I want to make it clear, if he does, as chairman of the foreign relations committee and former chair of the judiciary committee, I will move to impeach him."
You will also find a Chris Mattews interview where he stands behind this statement and repeats....
So I got together and brought a group of constitutional scholars together to write a piece that I'm going to deliver to the whole United State Senate pointing out the President has no constitutional authority...to take this nation to war against a county of 70 million people unless we're attacked or unless there is proof we are about to be attacked. And if he does, if he does, I would move to impeach him.
So if he knows, as you claim, that he had no authority to start Impeachment proceedings, he's just full of shit....but hey, he's YOUR liar that's full of shit, so that's OK.
Dunno about Coop, but this thread went exactly where I thought it would go.
I disagree. I think it's been a fairly decent discussion.
Of course you're the Pope and I'm not so we see things differently.