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

'War-weary' Obama says Syria chemical attack requires response

So why can't Obama do the same? I think we both know the answer..........If he gets congressional approval and things go wrong he can blame the Congress, is things go well he will take credit........He pulls that **** all the time. Clinton and Bush were willing to accept the responsibility.....Obama is not....He is a coward.

Wow, Clinton and Bush VIOLATED the war powers act and they are men for it, we're all interested in preventing Obama from committing the same crime and you say he'll be a coward if he doesn't! Some real circle reasoning Navy.
 
I't so cute when a dawg chases its tail and catches it
 
So why can't Obama do the same? I think we both know the answer..........If he gets congressional approval and things go wrong he can blame the Congress, is things go well he will take credit........He pulls that **** all the time. Clinton and Bush were willing to accept the responsibility.....Obama is not....He is a coward.

He could do the same...but he would be violating the War Powers Act as well. Maybe we have a President that believes in following the rule of law for once.
 
Right. And Disneydude's facts do not support you.

I care nothing of what you claim his "facts" are. You shouldn't either. But if you agree with what he typed out then rethink what actually happened back then. He just proved Bush and Clinton did not violate the war powers act, by his reasoning anyway.
 
I care nothing of what you claim his "facts" are. You shouldn't either. But if you agree with what he typed out then rethink what actually happened back then. He just proved Bush and Clinton did not violate the war powers act, by his reasoning anyway.

Well if you don't care, I don't care.
 
Personally, I don't think that we SHOULD attack Syria. However, under the war powers act, The United States can attack a country with approval from congress. A President just cannot make the unilaterally decision to do so.

Clinton did when he went to war in Serbia. Reagan did too, when he sent troops in to help the Contras. The War Powers Act is just a piece of paper, unless the people stand up when our leaders choose to violate it. Right now, unless the American People stand up to him, Obama is going to do whatever the hell he wants.

NOTE: Bush did not violate the War Powers Act, since his attack on Afghanistan was in direct response to an attack on US soil, and his war in Iraq was approved by Congress.
 
Last edited:
unless the American People stand up
no one that's half as bright as an outlawed incandescent light bulb would do that, who the heck wants an IRS audit I'd much rather go for a root canal or a proctology exam At least there's an upside to those?
sgsgp2.jpg
 
Wow, Clinton and Bush VIOLATED the war powers act and they are men for it, we're all interested in preventing Obama from committing the same crime and you say he'll be a coward if he doesn't! Some real circle reasoning Navy.

I think what navy is talking about is that Obama is only putting this to congress for political cover. Lord knows he doesn't accept blame for anything he does, or says.
 
Wow, Clinton and Bush VIOLATED the war powers act and they are men for it, we're all interested in preventing Obama from committing the same crime and you say he'll be a coward if he doesn't! Some real circle reasoning Navy.
Let this president stand up and accept the responsibility for his actions.......He will never do that because it defies his far left base. Its amazing you can't see that.
 
I think what navy is talking about is that Obama is only putting this to congress for political cover. Lord knows he doesn't accept blame for anything he does, or says.

Exactly, thank you....Obama is still blaming Bush and he has been President for almost 5 years.
 
He could do the same...but he would be violating the War Powers Act as well. Maybe we have a President that believes in following the rule of law for once.

He violates the Constitution all the time, why not here.......I think we both know why.
 
Wow, Clinton and Bush VIOLATED the war powers act and they are men for it, we're all interested in preventing Obama from committing the same crime and you say he'll be a coward if he doesn't! Some real circle reasoning Navy.

Obama thinks he is a King........He violates the constitution when he pleases.
 
Wow, Clinton and Bush VIOLATED the war powers act and they are men for it, we're all interested in preventing Obama from committing the same crime and you say he'll be a coward if he doesn't! Some real circle reasoning Navy.

Obama has already done it with Libya so it would be no problem for him to repeat the process, though 'leading from behind' with no Allies would seem more difficult this time around. He is going to Congress in order to share responsibility in the decision making process, just as he is now weaseling out of his Red Line comments.

His courage appears to be in telling ever greater lies and expecting people to continue to believe them.
 
Obama thinks he is a King........He violates the constitution when he pleases.
He wipes his tush with it and then laughs at us, ya gotta give him credit for that.
 
My point is clear. The War powers act does not authorize a President to use military force without approval of congress except in cases where the the military force is in direct response to an attack on the United States. Obama is doing the right thing.

Really, when were we attacked?
 
Obama thinks he is a King........He violates the constitution when he pleases.

I think it's fair to say that presidents particularly of late have been increasingly violating the constitution. That old republican Nixon said, "........if the President does it, it's not illegal." Which is to say that the president, by virtue of being president, can do anything. And then faithful little partisans, ignore, cover up or excuse it when their president does it and bitch the whole time the president from the other party is doing it. Obama supporters, the same ones that were raising hell over Bush (rightly so I might add) are largely silent now that their boy is in office. You who are raising hell, right now over Obama (rightly so I might add) I'm sure were silent when Bush was president. So..........it's the partisans that are destroying our democracy!
 
Dang it Monte, the partisans are supposed to attack the forces of the occupying enemy not aid and abet them.
 
Obama has already done it with Libya so it would be no problem for him to repeat the process, though 'leading from behind' with no Allies would seem more difficult this time around. He is going to Congress in order to share responsibility in the decision making process, just as he is now weaseling out of his Red Line comments.

His courage appears to be in telling ever greater lies and expecting people to continue to believe them.

What truly bizarre reasoning. Your advocating Obama violate the law, agreeing that he did in the past and urging him to do it again!! I MUST be in the twilight zone.
 
Help I'm steppin' into the Twilight Zone
Place is a madhouse
Feels like being cloned
My beacons been moved
Under moon and star
Where am I to go Now that I've gone too far

Precisely Angry, great song, too!
 
What truly bizarre reasoning. Your advocating Obama violate the law, agreeing that he did in the past and urging him to do it again!! I MUST be in the twilight zone.

No, i'm not advocating that. I'm saying he could because of the precedent he created in Libya, and Obama said as much during his visit to Sweden.
 
No, i'm not advocating that. I'm saying he could because of the precedent he created in Libya, and Obama said as much during his visit to Sweden.

He should be punished for his crime in Libya, one thing that Russia and China have been doing by vetoing everything at the UN. And a 40 year veteran constitutional scholar at the library of congress (amongst others) has said his actions in Libya were impeachable.
 
Dang it I'm still waiting for the shock and awe, screw this I'm gonna change the channel
 
Back
Top Bottom