• 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!

Pelosi says Trump carried out strike on Iranian commander without authorization and she wants detail

NeverTrump said:
I'm sure they'll be willing to share that intel and all decision-related materials leading up to the strike with appropriate House committees. /s



Also, How long until we until find out Trump was fed intel by Putin on this directly during his Christmas phone call? Putin is in the middle of selling weapons to Iran and meddling in the affairs of Ukraine...

Pelosi says Trump carried out strike on Iranian commander without authorization and she wants details
Click to expand...

The reason the raids were so successful is that Trump didn't tell the Iranian/Russia/Chinese/N. Korean operative Nancy Pelosi or other Democrats.
 
Cardinal said:
This discussion is completely missing the point. This isn’t about a President’s authority to carry out a strike without Congressional authority, and this isn’t about a past President’s actions in doing the same thing. This is about Trump carrying out a strike without Congressional authority, because it’s highly likely that he has not thought through any of the long term ramifications of his action and he has no plan for the future.
Click to expand...

I don't think its fair to equate the two. The 2001 AUMF clearly gave the president the authority to go after Bin Laden.

That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.​


I do not see any way to read the 2001 AUMF or the 2002 AUMF which would give the president the right to attack Iran in Iraq without the consent of the democratic government of Iraq.

Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists - Wikipedia
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/PLAW-107publ243/html/PLAW-107publ243.htm
 
jmotivator said:
She killed a few more brain cells... and the rest died of natural causes.
Click to expand...

Seriously, would it really hurt her to give her stamp of approval for Trump's decision to take this ****head out?
Instead, she demonstrates she will say and do anything to advance the anti-Trump narrative.
 
trixare4kids said:
Once again, Pelosi, Schumer, Schiff, and the rest of the Democratic clown car are happy to demonstrate the double standard. Politics before country always with these partisan fools.

I didn't see any of them condemning dear leader for not asking for congressional permission when he decided to secretly take OBL out. Did you?
Click to expand...

Was Bin Laden responsible in any way for 9/11?
 
Risky Thicket said:
When a president does not regularly attend and/or prepare for security briefings; when a president seeks advice from entertainers; when a president is so incurious that he had little concept of the ME 2 years ago; when the president has alienated longtime allies and denigrated their leaders; when the president is well known for divulging highly classified information to the public and to our adversaries to the point where it has likely affected our nation's ability to receive critical intelligence from foreign sources; when the president has all but decimated the State Department; when the president has alienated American intelligence agencies; when the president's foreign policy, in its 4th year, remains yet to be determined then it is definitely for the worse.
Click to expand...

^ Listen to all the Democrats sobbing over the death of the Iranian commander who was killing Americans. Reading their messages you'd think that Carl Marx, Mao or Joseph Stalin just died for all their furious sobbing. They're ranting and sobbing so much you'd think they just lost their next Civil War to create a slave and police state. But that doesn't mean they have given up.
 
Mithros said:
Was Bin Laden responsible in any way for 9/11?
Click to expand...

What difference does that make?
A terrorist is a terrorist and the numbers of Americans they are responsible for taking should make no difference.
 
Cardinal said:
This discussion is completely missing the point. This isn’t about a President’s authority to carry out a strike without Congressional authority, and this isn’t about a past President’s actions in doing the same thing. This is about Trump carrying out a strike without Congressional authority, because it’s highly likely that he has not thought through any of the long term ramifications of his action and he has no plan for the future.
Click to expand...

We've already been through this whole discussion back when Obama was ordering the attack on bin Laden, and flying sorties in Libya and Syria without consulting Congress, and launching a bazillion drone strikes in Countries most Democrats in Congress couldn't find on a map, let alone ever authorized.

I seem to remember the Democrats argument back then was that congressional authority could be retroactive.

Democrats can eat ****.
 
durtbag said:
she a treacherous s--mbag! her lap dog chuckie windbag is jacking his jaws now!
Click to expand...

ugh me Republican, Trump Good, Dem Bad, want food and women, MAGA, ugh.
 
trixare4kids said:
What difference does that make?
A terrorist is a terrorist and the numbers of Americans they are responsible for taking should make no difference.
Click to expand...

So then you were Cheering on Obama's drones strikes against terrorists right? Don't lie.
 
Risky Thicket said:
As opposed to obtaining Congressional approval? Why does not obtaining Congressional approval make you happy?
Click to expand...

If President Obama (or any other President) had to obtain Congressional approval to carry out a strike against the leader of a terrorist organization, I would contend that both Osama bin Laden, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi and Suleimani would all still be alive to the general detriment of the United States and of humanity.
 
trixare4kids said:
And the evidence for the above is pulled from where?
Click to expand...

The fact that he's never thought through the long term ramifications of anything before. Think North Korea.
 
jmotivator said:
We've already been through this whole discussion back when Obama
Click to expand...

Trump isn't Obama. Any comparison to past Presidents is a fail, because Trump doesn't think and act like a person who comprehends policy.
 
Risky Thicket said:
When a president does not regularly attend and/or prepare for security briefings; when a president seeks advice from entertainers; when a president is so incurious that he had little concept of the ME 2 years ago; when the president has alienated longtime allies and denigrated their leaders; when the president is well known for divulging highly classified information to the public and to our adversaries to the point where it has likely affected our nation's ability to receive critical intelligence from foreign sources; when the president has all but decimated the State Department; when the president has alienated American intelligence agencies; when the president's foreign policy, in its 4th year, remains yet to be determined then it is definitely for the worse.
Click to expand...

Yeah, it kind of sucks, but that has nothing to do with my comment. I don't think that the power the President has aggregated is really good, but they've been grabbing it for some time and now Trump has it. I don't know what authorization he needed for this strike, maybe he did need to notify Congress or something, but generally speaking the President has a lot of leeway with our military.
 
Mithros said:
I don't think its fair to equate the two. The 2001 AUMF clearly gave the president the authority to go after Bin Laden.

That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.​


I do not see any way to read the 2001 AUMF or the 2002 AUMF which would give the president the right to attack Iran in Iraq without the consent of the democratic government of Iraq.

Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists - Wikipedia
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/PLAW-107publ243/html/PLAW-107publ243.htm
Click to expand...

I'm not arguing whether or not any comparison is "fair." I'm arguing that it's an irrelevant discussion point.
 
NeverTrump said:
I'm sure they'll be willing to share that intel and all decision-related materials leading up to the strike with appropriate House committees. /s



Also, How long until we until find out Trump was fed intel by Putin on this directly during his Christmas phone call? Putin is in the middle of selling weapons to Iran and meddling in the affairs of Ukraine...

Pelosi says Trump carried out strike on Iranian commander without authorization and she wants details
Click to expand...

The president doesn't hsve to get authorization to kill a terrorist.
 
Felis Leo said:
If Donald Trump took a gun and shot Putin in the head, I think that many here would claim that this was just another plot put in place by Putin to be undertaken by his puppet Trump.
Click to expand...

Post winner of this thread!! :applaud
 
joko104 said:
^ Listen to all the Democrats sobbing over the death of the Iranian commander who was killing Americans. Reading their messages you'd think that Carl Marx, Mao or Joseph Stalin just died for all their furious sobbing. They're ranting and sobbing so much you'd think they just lost their next Civil War to create a slave and police state. But that doesn't mean they have given up.
Click to expand...

Think! What did this actually accomplish? Which capabilities has Iran lost? What actions does this force Iran to take?

I doubt any of you had even heard of Soleimani before he was killed. Soleimani was a general from a professional military from an actual nation. He was not the leader of a hodgepodge terrorist organization. Everyone is replaceable in a professional military. EVERYONE. His replacement will take over his responsibilities and Iran's military will not have been compromised in the slightest.

Soleimani was however popular in Iran. His death cannot go without a response. Iran MUST escalate. If the goal of the attack was to push back Iran because of their support for attacks on our embassies it's an utter failure. Instead of preventing future attacks we've ensured that they will happen while at the same time removing global support for our actions.
 
Common Sense 1 said:
One more reason why the democrats are going to get rolled by President Trump Nov. 2020! :lol:
Click to expand...

Thank you for sharing your fantasy with us. But in the future, please don't.
 
trixare4kids said:
I see Nancy didn't get any smarter during the holiday recess.
Click to expand...

That made me lol. Been listening to the Dems this morning and they have their panties in a wad because Trump didn't come to them to get authorization. Trump doesn't need authorization to take out someone already listed as a terrorist planning with a leader of Hezbollah another listed terrorist organization over future planned attacks on Americans and our interests. Besides the way that bunch are if he had told them, 15 minutes later it would have been leaked to the NYT.

The way the dems word it is in fear what Iran might do next instead of looking at it as something that will help protect Americans and our friends in the region. Trump warned them if an American loses their life over these ongoing attacks in the past months there would be a price to pay. Last week it happened. On the second day of our embassy under siege, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei replied that Trump "cannot do a damn thing" as pro-Iran thugs firebombed the compound. Then Hezbollah fanatics threatened to kill every American inside. Well the Ayatollah and Hezbollah found out there was something Trump could do. Take out the heads of two snakes that our country identifies as terrorists behind the attacks and thwart those that were already in the works. When Trump draws a red line if you cross it there will be consequences.
 
Fletch said:
Thats about as lame a rationale that you could possibly come up with. Good job
Click to expand...

I'll ask again, how does killing him hurt Putin?
 
Praxas said:
Thank you for sharing your fantasy with us. But in the future, please don't.
Click to expand...
With a good economy and being the incumbent, guess what? The incumbent usually wins. :)
 
Cardinal said:
The fact that he's never thought through the long term ramifications of anything before. Think North Korea.
Click to expand...

Nonsense. Lay off the leftist disinformation blogosphere, all who want nothing more than to see this president fail at everything.
US urges restraint from North Korea but says military is ready if needed - Pacific - Stripes

SEOUL, South Korea — Defense Secretary Mark Esper urged restraint from North Korea after it threatened to unveil a “new strategic weapon,” but he said the U.S. military remains ready to fight if needed.

Esper maintained hope for diplomacy despite the resumption of weapons testing and saber rattling by the North after talks collapsed following a failed February summit between President Donald Trump and North Korean leader Kim Jong Un.

“We think the best path forward, with regard to North Korea, is a political agreement that denuclearizes the peninsula,” Esper said Thursday in an interview with Fox News. “We are going to remain on that path, and we would, obviously, urge Kim Jong Un and his leadership team to sit back down at the negotiation table to do that.”

“But that said — we remain, from a military perspective, ready to fight tonight, as need be, but more importantly, or as importantly, I should say, enable our diplomats to get an agreement done,” he added. “So, we would urge restraint by Kim Jong Un.”
Click to expand...
 
trixare4kids said:
What difference does that make?
A terrorist is a terrorist and the numbers of Americans they are responsible for taking should make no difference.
Click to expand...

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/PLAW-107publ40/pdf/PLAW-107publ40.pdf

IN GENERAL.—That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed,or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001,or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons​

We can agree or disagree with the wisdom of issuing the 2001 AUMF. But clearly Obama had the authority to pursue Bin Laden. By what authority did Trump attack Iran on the sovereign soil of a democratic Iraq?
 
Anthony60 said:
Trump couldn't risk the security of the operation by letting information out to unreliable people such as Pelosi and Schiff.
Click to expand...

Trump's WH has more leaks than a submarine screen door.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom