|
|
 |
|
|
|
#1
06-15-2011, 10:12 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
"Around 47,000 U.S. troops still in Iraq are due to leave by the end of 2011 under a security pact, and Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki's Shi'ite-led coalition government is debating the sensitive question of whether to ask Washington to keep some of them in place. U.S. officials and senior Iraqi military commanders have said they believe some kind of continuing U.S. military presence is necessary to ensure Iraq's security and defense needs, especially in an advisory and training role." but i guess that's not enough of a role to call keeping people in-country, based on his laughable take on libya. 
|
|
#2
06-15-2011, 10:17 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
and promises don't mean squat...you can't believe or trust a pol...more words from obama, from 2007(thanks to politifact):
In the wake of U.S. participation in military operations against targets in Libya, commentators on the left and the right have raised questions about whether President Barack Obama had the required authority to launch operations without specific authorization from Congress. A reader pointed out to us that Obama himself had made a notable comment during a 2007 interview with Charlie Savage, then a journalist with the Boston Globe. Savage asked Obama, "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?)" While the specific context of Savage’s question concerned Iranian nuclear plants, we think Obama’s answer raised some points that are relevant for assessing the justification for the Libyan operation three years later. Obama said, "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." He added, "As commander-in-chief, the president does have a duty to protect and defend the United States. In instances of self-defense, the president would be within his constitutional authority to act before advising Congress or seeking its consent. History has shown us time and again, however, that military action is most successful when it is authorized and supported by the legislative branch. It is always preferable to have the informed consent of Congress prior to any military action." he forgot to say unless and until he was president and wanted to bomb libya. after all, qaddafi is such an easy target...hey, we're spending too much on two wars, let's get in a third!!! brilliant!
|
|
#3
06-15-2011, 10:26 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Kucinich had the Libya War Powers Resolution Act on the floor of Congress a couple weeks ago, and the Republicans - Speaker John Boehner - pulled it from a vote due to fear it would pass, and we'd then have to get out of Libya within 15 days. So it's not just the President that's fine with Libya at this point. The Republican House leadership had the chance to force us to get out of Libya 15 days after the resolution passed, and they did not allow it to pass.
__________________
"Have the clean racing people run any ads explaining that giving a horse a Starbucks and a chocolate poppyseed muffin for breakfast would likely result in a ten year suspension for the trainer?" - Dr. Andrew Roberts
|
|
#4
06-15-2011, 10:35 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
but didn't you just say he was getting them all out? well, if some are staying, i find that odd-but don't make the claim that they're all going to be out next month, when that's clearly not the case.
as for congress, they want answers and they want reasons-i thought they didn't pass the stiffer resolution because the president said he was going to be forthcoming? so much for that. they did what they did to give him time to answer-but that time is running out, which explains the letter-and now the white houses response. the president had his window of opportunity to do this the right way. one would have to think their would be a damned good reason for being there-congress gave him benefit of the doubt and time to give that reason, but their patience is wearing thin, and with good reason. the executive has it's privileges, which congress recognized. i completely disagree with the president on this matter.
|
|
#5
06-15-2011, 10:43 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
 Yeah, the fighting troops will be all out, and all that will be left is some advisors. Sounds pretty good to me, considering it was a complete waste of lives in the first place.Quote:
No, they didn't want to force us out of Libya in 15 days.Quote:
I agree with you, I don't like the President's answer on Libya. http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2...i-war-bill.php http://www.truthout.org/long-last-ho...ers/1307202537
__________________
"Have the clean racing people run any ads explaining that giving a horse a Starbucks and a chocolate poppyseed muffin for breakfast would likely result in a ten year suspension for the trainer?" - Dr. Andrew Roberts
|
|
#6
06-16-2011, 09:56 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Meanwhile in Iran and across the muslim mideast.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-k1gu...layer_embedded The silence and lack of action by the UN is disgusting and proves how inept and worthless they really are...
|
|
#7
06-16-2011, 12:13 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
__________________
"Always be yourself...unless you suck!"
|
|
#8
06-16-2011, 12:28 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Agreed but we certainly don't need to aid them or for that matter have a President giving speeches expounding their great achievements (mostly lies). Last edited by dellinger63 : 06-16-2011 at 12:38 PM.
|
|
#9
06-16-2011, 12:34 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
|
Hybrid Mode
