• 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!

10 U.S. lawmakers sue Obama over Libya strikes

Simon W. Moon said:
I don't think anyone suggested that Congress was an arbiter of what is or is not a justified war.
I don't think that's anyone's point.

The argument is that it's their job because it divests the Office of the PotUS of dangerous power.
Click to expand...

And my point is that Congress cannot be trusted with that power either. They've proven in recent history that they declare war based on what's good for them. Not based on what is good for the American People.
 
TacticalEvilDan said:
No, I honestly don't, and since you used the term I figured I could ask you to define it. :)
Click to expand...

Ok, it's not that hard.

U.S. forces are currently deployed to the Libyan theater of operations. They are currenlty employed in strictly a support role. Ya with me?
 
So deployment talks about where you put a bunch of guys, and employment talks about what you have them do while they're there?
 
TacticalEvilDan said:
I agree with you, except that the problem of Congress ceding power to the President needs to be fixed by Congress and not by the courts.
Click to expand...

But if the President ignores the Constitution, the law and Congress, the courts are the final recourse... as envisioned by our founders...
 
W00ster said:
But I bet none of them had any problems with the outright lies the Bush administration used to invade Iraq nor any problems with the amount of Americans killed as a result of their lies. Nor do they seemingly have any issues with the 6.6 billion tax payer dollars stolen in Iraq. Nope, the #1 killer of Americans over the past decade is living peacefully in Crawford, Texas. The #2 killer, Bin Laden was not so lucky!
Click to expand...

1. Do you know the definition of the word 'lie'?
2. Actually, that wasn't taxpayer money that was lost according to the reports I saw on CNN. It is actually Iraqi money put into a trust...
 
ludahai said:
1. Do you know the definition of the word 'lie'?
2. Actually, that wasn't taxpayer money that was lost according to the reports I saw on CNN. It is actually Iraqi money put into a trust...
Click to expand...

"Weapons of Mass Destruction"

UN, NATO: None of that here!

Bush: Yes there is, WAAAARRRRR.

That's a lie.

Bush: Hmm, no WMD. Well, They're linked to Osama Bin Laden!

UN, NATO, U.S. Intelligence Agencies: No they're not.

Bush: YES THEY ARE, WAAAAARRRR.

That's a lie.

Bush lied, he got his war. It cost thousands upon thousands of lives and did almost no effing good whatsoever.

TacticalEvilDan said:
So deployment talks about where you put a bunch of guys, and employment talks about what you have them do while they're there?
Click to expand...

Yup. That's correct.
 
ludahai said:
But if the President ignores the Constitution, the law and Congress, the courts are the final recourse... as envisioned by our founders...
Click to expand...

Actually, no. Can you show me what enforcement powers the Supreme Court has?

Congress was set up to be the President's judge and jury of last resort. That's what impeachment is all about.
 
It will be interesting to see how this goes. I've read somewhere in the distant past that the WPA had not really been tested by a Supreme Court ruling. The argument is that the WPA is an unconstitutional intrusion on the President's authority as Commander in Chief by Congress. I'm not staking a claim to a position either way, but it will be interesting to watch.
 
Congress has the power to put into legislation other measures that would tighten or constrain the president's freedom in this area.

But they just don't have the brains to find the adequate loopholes with their wording to make it happen.

Nor does congress have the balls to just NOT FUND operations - afterall, that's the initial power that was granted TO Congress. The idea was that if a war action was undesired they could simply not fund it - and tada - not happening . . . instead - they became lazy and opted for an overall massive budget-approval that just hands out money willy nilly and unconstrained.

They gave away their power.

Congress is also the end-all in WHO we sign agreements with and WHAT is permitted via those agreements.
 
apdst said:
In short, yes.
Click to expand...

Thanks for helping me understand the difference.

While I will agree it is not Congress' place to niggle the President to death on the details of what he has the military doing, it absolutely is Congress' place to deny the President the ability to send the military someplace and have them fight someone that doesn't represent a direct threat to the security of our nation.

In other words, Congress doesn't get to tell the President "no" if he's addressing a threat of invasion or attack, but Congress absolutely has the right to tell the President not to send the military in on a police action.
 
ItsAProcess said:
"Weapons of Mass Destruction"

UN, NATO: None of that here!

Bush: Yes there is, WAAAARRRRR.

That's a lie.

Bush: Hmm, no WMD. Well, They're linked to Osama Bin Laden!

UN, NATO, U.S. Intelligence Agencies: No they're not.

Bush: YES THEY ARE, WAAAAARRRR.

That's a lie.

Bush lied, he got his war. It cost thousands upon thousands of lives and did almost no effing good whatsoever.
Click to expand...

So, are you saying Clinton lied to? Again, do you know the DEFINITION of lie?

And getting rid of a brutal dictator is not a good thing? Seeing elections in Iraq is not a good thing?
 
Last edited:
TacticalEvilDan said:
10 U.S. lawmakers sue Obama over Libya strikes - CBS News



This will go exactly nowhere. Even the highest court has proven to be extremely reluctant to get in the middle of an argument between the President and Congress.
Click to expand...

I fear you may be right but is a Constitutional issue and it is according to that document it is up to the Supreme Court to settle any issue between the Legislative and Executive branches.

It is clear that Obama is in violation of the Constitution which I see as much more serious than lying about getting a Lewinsky in a closet.

It won't go past Obama being told to comply. If he does not then he is in jeopardy, I hope.
 
Last edited:
shades said:
and this is especially true in matters of sending my son or daughter in harms way, one man can not make that call, under any circumstance short of immediate national security,
and especially not under the premise that its different because its a UN operation.
Click to expand...
I wonder how those in the military feel about being the one term president Obama's bitc...uh, oh, handmaiden?
 
W00ster said:
But I bet none of them had any problems with the outright lies the Bush administration used to invade Iraq nor any problems with the amount of Americans killed as a result of their lies. Nor do they seemingly have any issues with the 6.6 billion tax payer dollars stolen in Iraq. Nope, the #1 killer of Americans over the past decade is living peacefully in Crawford, Texas. The #2 killer, Bin Laden was not so lucky!
Click to expand...

Tu quoque - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
W00ster said:
But I bet none of them had any problems with the outright lies the Bush administration used to invade Iraq nor any problems with the amount of Americans killed as a result of their lies. Nor do they seemingly have any issues with the 6.6 billion tax payer dollars stolen in Iraq. Nope, the #1 killer of Americans over the past decade is living peacefully in Crawford, Texas. The #2 killer, Bin Laden was not so lucky!
Click to expand...

I overlooked this quote early . . .

You say this as if Bush was truthful and forthright outcoming in the beginning of things that everyone would have been behind him.

The whole problem, here, is that many people just don't want to be fighting a war - period - Bush could have been as honest as the sun but would anyone have supported him even then?

I wouldn't have - I strongly oppose us ever 'invading' anyone because of some sort of war-powers act or civility treaty that the other party violates. I don't think threat of invasion should EVER be an element in any sort of treaty - just absolutely absurd.

This is the truth that most don't ever discuss, hear about or know of - the invasion of Iraq was pre-planned due to perceived violations of our treaty with them.
 
apdst said:
No, he should be able to deploy troops per the war powers act, as it is now. Employment of our military shouldn't be left to the suits in Congress who have demonstrated that they're willing to endanger the country to win political points.
Click to expand...

It's the proper check on Presidential power. The President ain't king, and he should not be allowed to use the military any which way he desires. There needs to be a proper check, and that proper check comes through Congressional authorization of force.
 
Any chance we could stay focused on the topic of the War Powers Act and congressional action on it instead of playing more Bush/Clinton did it too games?
Because we will never have an accountable government if we always keep bouncing that particular ball back and forth.

Address the problem once--set a precedent and abide by it.
Btw Ikari, nice job staying on topic.
 
ludahai said:
So, are you saying Clinton lied to? Again, do you know the DEFINITION of lie?

And getting rid of a brutal dictator is not a good thing? Seeing elections in Iraq is not a good thing?
Click to expand...

Definition of Lie: An intentionally False Statement.

All politicians lie. Yes, even Clinton. what matters is what happens after they leave office. Clinton left office with a surge of International Co-operation and respect, and a 2 Trillion Dollar Surplus.

Bush and his croneys were just looking for excuses. Stop being a bigot.

Yes, the Removal of Saddam Hussein was a good thing. But it was not, and never will be worth the Thousands of American Lives that it cost!

Especially not when it was NEVER the 'stated goal' of the war in Iraq.

Don't try to tell me whether that war was Justified or not. I spent time in that Sandy Hell.

Ikari: Congress doesn't declare war for the right reasons. They've proved it in the past. Congress should not be the Power Check on the President's ability to deploy troops.

We need a different way of handling something so important as our country Going To War when not under direct threat of invasion. Because Congress Cannot. Be. Trusted.
 
Last edited:
ItsAProcess said:
Ikari: Congress doesn't declare war for the right reasons. They've proved it in the past. Congress should not be the Power Check on the President's ability to deploy troops.

We need a different way of handling something so important as our country Going To War when not under direct threat of invasion. Because Congress Cannot. Be. Trusted.
Click to expand...

Doesn't declare war for the "right" reasons? What are the "right reasons"? The last time they declared war was WW II, which was pretty appropriate after the Japanese attacked us. We have 3 branches of government. Obviously the President can't be a check on himself. So that leaves the Courts and Congress. Only Congress was granted the ability to declare war, thus proper oversight and regulation about when we deploy troops around the world should be checked by them as they were given the power to do so. The proper check on the use of our military comes through Congress.
 
TacticalEvilDan said:
This will go exactly nowhere. Even the highest court has proven to be extremely reluctant to get in the middle of an argument between the President and Congress.
Click to expand...

100% Correct.

The simple fact is no court including the Supreme Court has the authority to intercede on matters between the President and Congress where the President's foreign policy, ability to negotiate treaties or his ability to command the military as CinC are concerned. The only body that has this authority is Congress itself.

Art 1, Sec 2, Clause 5 - "House of Representatives has the power to Impeach a sitting President"

Art 1, Sec 3, Clause 6 - "Senate has the sole power to try all Impeachments"

25th Amendment - "Presidential Succession of power (resignation) or death"

That's all folks!
 
apdst said:
Bush lied? Really?
Click to expand...
Yes, to the whole world through Colin Powell in front of the UN general assembly. There is more then enough recordings of the speech, I even watched it myself.

- No WMD's in Iraq
- Saddam did not cooperate with Al-Qaeda
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom