A New War You Can't Blame On Bush! Or Can You?

Obama tosses the potato over to Congress, hilarity ensues.

Oh, sorry Eugene. You called my claims misinformation in the OP so I backed it up with what I thought was general knowledge if you don't get your news just from the television.

Oh, Jassik, you so crazy blind. ;)

“After careful deliberation, I have decided that the United States should take military action against Syrian regime targets,” he said, describing himself as “prepared to give that order.”

http://news.yahoo.com/obama-to-make-1-15-p-m--statement-on-syria-161723103.html

The fact the administration came out from the begining claiming to have evidence and saying the rebels have no access when they know, and it is documented different proves an intent to strike. From the begining they tried shading the facts to their liking.

Did they come out objectively like everyone else? Let's wait for the U.N. to inspect? The only reason, imho, that it has not happened yet is because there is little public support. Even after Kerry's cry fest looking for support failed. People are waking up and it makes me proud. First time in a long time.

Logic asks you, and anyone for that matter who thinks otherwise. Why would a 'regime' winning the battle use chemical weapons knowing full well the USA is just itching to join in? I will wait for a logical excuse.

On the other coin, terrorists are losing the battle and need more help. The USA has stated they will intervene is chemical weapons are used. So who has more to gain from chemical weapons? Who kills women and children? Al-CIA-da.

We can assume congress will also vote yes, most of them have the same owners as Bush and Obama. Let's hope they listen to their contituents for once.

Maybe in the future we can avoid elections based on state issues, like who supports gay marriage, abortion, color, and anything else minor. Maybe we can focus on policy, economic goals and record. Also, who owes which people for donations. No donations over 10$, new law! let's push for it! :) Also, ban lobbyists and fire all the advisors. I know, I dream that one day we can take back control, and destroy the debt based system enslaving us all.

I want to add, Last night after I searched for those links to counter Eugene's dismissal. I got an error 404 10 times on yahoo when searching for information on the Iraq central bank. I then went to google and tried to search. I got redirected to a page that said, paraphrasing, (I shoulda screen shotted it, but i was like, oh dang im goin to guantamino. lol.) this computer has had recent suspicious activity. Please enter the captcha to verify this is you and not a robot. Of course, knowing some law, I closed the browser immediately.

I went to Bing and they gave me the info I was looking for. I don't really trust microsoft either. If anyone knows another good engine, maybe not USA based, I would be grateful.

In response to a comment I made after the official statement OVER A WEEK AGO you call me out based on a statement released today. Do you not understand the concept of linear time?

Edit: as far as offshore search engines, Yandex.ru is fairly secure but I don't know if it has an English version.

Simple yet accurate comment. Congress got what they wanted and if they screw it up they will look absolutely terrible while Obama can just say hey, they said no. Once again Congress provides the ammo for its own destruction, letting Obama completely off the hook. Its a lose-lose for the Republicans and a win-win for Obama. If they say yes he can go in and hit Assad and look like the good guy, if they say no he is blameless.

You would have to be the biggest trash bag left-wing lunatic to play politics with a situation like this, so I really wouldn't put it past him. Does a leader say "Hey you guys talk about it and I'll do whatever?" Or does a President lead people to his goal. What is the President's position. If he were to decide alone what would he be doing? If he had a preference of the outcome of Congressional votes what would it be? What does he want to do in Syria? Where is the leadership?!?

Face it. Assad looked President Obama in the eyes and called his bluff. Obama blinked and his out is to play politics with it. This is not win-win for Obama. He looks weak in front of the entire world now. The moral of this story is do not talk ***if you aren't going to back it up.

I favor doing nothing in Syria from Day 1. It's not our fight. It's not anyone else's fight. It is a civil war. We should only be involved behind the scenes trying to somehow find a political solution for peace. If we can't then they keep fighting. It's civil war. You don't step in front of microphones and make demands that you cannot or will not back up. He made this situation so much worse for America by opening his trap during an election and laying down red lines.

In no way is this win-win for President Obama internationally or politically in America. It is the end for him no matter what the outcome.

While the President isn't technically required to seek congressional approval for actions like this, one of Obama's key political stances was that no single person should allow themselves to carry out an action without the support of the people. You can debate individual aspects of the political game, but he HAS been consistent in that respect.

I appreciate that he'd rather look like a jackass than take us into another conflict without congressional support. I can only hope that it will go down the way it has in the UK. Cameron sought approval and they spanked him like an insolent child. I don't necessarily care if Obama's reputation is tainted anymore than it has, I care that we don't get into this problem that isn't ours.

I also don't like the idea that Kerry is running the PR circuit trying to convince us that they have "proof" that Assad gave the order, or what was used, or any of the certainty he's trying to hand out like balloons. If they DO have this information, why are they not sharing it with the UN? Why is it not being publicized?

Even if there was proof available, I'd say "well, I guess I was wrong, that sucks" and it STILL wouldn't be our problem.

To be fair, he looked weak before this when PUTIN put him in his place about Snowden. Now he just looks like a dumb *** putting a stick line in the dirt and saying I DARE YOU TO CROSS THIS!

He can't go to war without congress' approval unless it's a direct attack on the US or unless it's a threat to our national security.

He can "GO to war" and he can put troops on the ground, but he has 90 days to summit a letter to congress why.

Upon further research, Apparently there has been issues related where Article II section 2 says that The president is commander in chief of the Navy and Army. This has apparently be translated into "Since I have power of these two military, I DO AS I PLEASES"



In retrospect, I guess you could pretty much classify anything as a national security threat....

The best thing he can do, is sit back and be humble about this and swallow his pride. Make an announcement saying this was a red line for me, however, I will follow up with congress and see what they have to say about this.

Lol Obama seeks congress and suddenly the dictator king is a coward. Stick to one script folks some of us care about internal consistency.

If we must start another war let the legislative branch do their jobs and send us into the bowels of more sectarian hell. Obama claims hes for unilateral strikes but I dont believe him and this in two fell strokes shows this Syria situation isnt important and extricates the president from a useless halfass strike.

I have been pretty consistently opposed to the idea of Obama as a socialist/marxist dictator. He's a lot of things, but those aren't it.


I agree it's the job of congress to make these kinds of decisions with objectivity and a complete aversion to partisan loyalty or imperialism. There is, IMO, only one reason to EVER "start" a war, when someone else starts it.

There is no dignity in maintaining the most advanced, powerful, and funded military in the world if we use it as an international police force. It's called "Defense" for a reason.

I agree that congress should make the decision (Not saying I am for it). There was a reason no one person should have the ability to say we are going to war.

Yes I needed a week to post evidence to their feelings/tone to the situation. Of course he waited to publicize it. Mr. President is not stupid. He has no public support and no backup. Like I said before, I don't think HE wants to, but he has to. Unfortunately, their actions already made it obvious if you pay attention. I apologize if you can not see things in a sinister way. I am jealous of your life.

Obama will still catch flack for this potato. Bush got votes for Iraq too, and he is all anyone looks at. There will never be evidence Assad did this. So it's really the same situation and anyone using that to divide the country even more with D vs R crap is a blatant hypocrite.

Politics? He had to let them vote or he was done for. Too little support. Did he get any votes to bomb Libya?

That's why Hillary stepped off. So she is clean for 16. ;) These are not noobs.

Assad did not do this. It's rebels and the president knows it. Sorry, cite your source. They still want to get in there.

What will we do when Syria retaliates? Pack our bags? No then they will glorify it like crazy and get public support.

Congress authorizes war. Obama is proposing a punitive strike. He can do that alone, but he isn't going to. Did it once, it was a military success but mostly a political minus.


Aman, face it, in your books he always looses. IRL the Republicans want him to have no wins, even if the whole country looses. They, like you, are wrong. They, unlike you, can do something about it.

But you know, this time they have painted everyone into a corner.

The disgusting amount of people who seem to think they know what is going on in someone else's head still shocks me. No matter how many times those people get it dead wrong, they seem to celebrate getting it right like it's the norm.

You don't know what their intentions were until they stated them. But keep doing your victory dance for getting it nearly right for once. I'll continue to live in the world of where I judge situations based on the available information.


I'd like to believe his hard speech and weak action are more based on uncertainty of international support than political pressure. He's a 2nd term president, so re-election to any public office is probably not a concern. But, you're probably right.

This hasn't been true for decades. To my knowledge World War II was the last time Congress actually declared war, but we've waged plenty of them since then.

I base mine off of history, communication, and available information. Nonverbal communication is an important skill you should work on reading. The publicity, everything for the last week has obviously been leading up to it. It is like 2004 all over again, only this time there is a false flag to begin intervention.
It should have been painfully obvious to you what the goals are from the start. Unless you only watch msnbc or fox.

I think, the rebels only used some of the chemicals supplied to them. That's why it was only* 355 deaths, as Doctors Without Borders claims, now the govt. knows terrorists have some left and want to get it before it gets used against USA or Israel directly.


Did he verbalize this? Or are do you know what's going on inside his head?

http://www.ffxiah.com/forum/topic/35016/romneys-parting-shot-at-the-media

No-one gotta get mad or looking for a victory dance. I post everywhere I can trying to wake people up. This is not a 'I'm right' issue! This is a human issue.

Edited for: I said a few times, Obama may not want to do it, but he has to. Maybe you don't know but the USA has said they will not negotiate with Assad as leader. And Assad will not step down. That has one conclusion.

Alex Jones is a lying sellout. So I don't listen to him either. Research everything. In today's information age there is no excuse not to. Except laziness.

Also, I am not disagreeing with your Romney conclusion. I am merely showing your hypocrisy. You are not above anyone.

Non-verbal communication is a pretty weak defense. There has been a lot of media speculation but very little actual facts besides the ones Kerry is referencing but won't reveal.

I don't subscribe to conspiracy theories. It makes as much sense that the rebels did it as it does that Assad did it, and just because we won't negotiate with Assad and he won't resign doesn't mean Obama HAS to do anything.

In regards to my statement about Romney, he was recorded on several occasions saying things like "the only reason poor people are poor is because they don't know how to be rich". He made over 100 million dollars at Bane, much of it through immoral gut and outsource tactics. That's hardly mind-reading...

I don't make losers lose. They do that all by themselves. Maybe next time people should, I don't know, vet the Presidential candidate they are going to vote for. What in his life made anyone think he would be a good leader in anything? He is good at one thing and that is getting people pissed off at other people; creating division. Perhaps he would have some political successes if he didn't question publically the motives of anyone that has an honest disagreement with him. I will just sit back and watch his meltdown. It's a shame though because he could have accomplished some great things if he was half the man that ran for President in 2008. But alas, it was all an illusion.

I was partially on board with you, Amandarius, until you started calling him weak for him asking for Congress' approval. Like someone said, stick to one script. You can't hate him for not going to Congress AND "being weak" by consulting Congress.

Granted I still think Obama's an *** because the administration has essentially said that regardless of what action Congress chooses, he'll still have the final say. All he's doing is trying to "share the responsibility" with other people if it blows up in his face. Basically someone to blame if things go wrong.

The president can only inact miltary action for a span of 60 days. Anything more than that requires congressional approval. Though such wars as Vietnam with JFK and Panama with Bush Sr. exceeded that timeframe and didn't have congressional approval. That being said the exexutive branch by design is not as powerful as the legislative. If congress and the senate are splintered by partisian bickering and stalwarting then the abilities of the executive branch become affected. Ultimately with regard to this issue the opinion that matters since they are the one that will initiate or approve any action is Chuck Hagel. Notice you haven't heard him chime in yet.

Power creep of the executive branch is Congress' fault anyway. The War Powers Act was designed for immanent threats and to allow the President to engage in military uses of force to protect the country without needing to go through legislative channels.
What that has turned into is the President launching rockets into countries to play world police. By Obamas admission this can wait a month which means it's not imminent or a direct threat to the US. The international community isn't up in arms about the use of chemical weapons and the countries that are were traditional enemies of Assad to begin with or want a ground invasion to capture or kill Assad, not rattle his cage or slap his wrist.

So if we're gonna do something it better be like Kosovo or Iraq II because cruise missiles into some supply depots or airstrips isn't going to change the "humanitarian crisis" on the ground.

So when someone puts a gun to an innocent's head in front of a cop and says it's the cop's fault for the innocent dying, you'd be blaming the cop?

False analogy AHOY.

Conspiracy theory sites are not a news source. And you would need to cite them. Just sayin.

Maybe if the goofball GOP frontliners hadn't spent so much time focusing on trying to paint him as a Kenyan, Muslim, Marxist, or finding creative ways to point out that he's black, they'd have found legitimate reasons not to vote for him. Maybe if there wasn't this ultra-conservative "Murica" movement within the GOP, Mccain wouldn't have thrown away his chances of actually winning by naming that halfwit Palin as his running mate.

There is no way you can blame anyone besides the neo-cons for not vetting Obama. And nominating Romney, an unapologetic yes-man... come on...

Are you serious? Are people really no longer accountable for their own actions? How are the neo-cons to blame for Obama turning back on his promises and being right-wing as hell? How is Congress the only one accountable for the Obama administration's joyride into excessive abuse of power?

That is not what I said. At all...


The neo-cons are responsible for the complaint he expressed. A conservative being upset that conservative media didn't properly vet a candidate.

That's got nothing to do with Obama's failures to perform the job, which are numerous.

Were you like 5 during the 2008 election? Did you sleep and miss the entire thing? If you think John McCain had any shot in hell at winning that election no matter who his running mate are then you take any credibility that you have and flush it down the toilet. No one could have dethroned the Messiah that was going to save America. No one wanted to know anything about him. You were racist for even looking into his past for simple things like education or employment background. You couldn't get more moderate than McCain or Romney. Look at their record or keep talking out your ***. w/e



picture of that damn Conservative obstructionist today trying to bail Obama out.

In this day and age, no, nobody is at fault for anything.

...except Bush...because, you know, Bush.

That's a pretty simplistic view of it, but he is definitely the easiest target in recent memory. Other than the moms on that child pageant reality show.

Maybe if McCain and Romney were allowed to be moderate they would have won the election, especially in the case of Romney who had a weakened President to tussle with. Instead he was forced to go hard right to placate the base which promptly scared off the moderates who saw Romney for the flip flopping, say whatever it takes to win politician he was. Had he stuck to that moderate message, Romney would probably be our President right now.

Romney couldn't even talk about his crowning achievement Romneycare and if McCain was the president right now we'd probably be in another war because if there is one thing John McCain is consistent in is the use of military force to accomplish objectives.