Double Talk in DC

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: carewemust

That is not the opinion of the experts dear.

They say he has made the situation worse. As usual.

Are you really hoping for war? Have kids you're willing to sacrifice because I do not.

Because ... Obama made the Middle East so much better and so much more stable in his tenure.

The first 4 years of the Obama administration was Bush's fault.

The last 4 years of the Obama administration was Trump's fault.

a reply to: DBCowboy

I don't know why they're so upset. I mean, some people did some things in the Middle East, and at this point, what difference does it make?

originally posted by: timidgal

originally posted by: Mach2

originally posted by: timidgal

originally posted by: pavil
a reply to: timidgal

There's no question that Gen. Qassem Soleimani had American blood on his hands, but such a blatant disregard of proper protocol, which provides for checks and balances, is unacceptable in this situation. I'm so tired of the tit for tat that's been going on in D.C.

The first part of that sentence says everything that needs to be said.

Pray tell, what protocol and checks and balances were needed to take out probably the number one formentor of trouble in the middle east who killed and maimed numerous US and Coalition Forces in Iraq and Afghanistan with those made in Iran IEDs?

Are you saying the Democratic leadership would have opposed this operation? Can't wait till they actually say that and seal their political fates.

Are we a renegade country? I agree that he was a despicable individual, but that's not what this is about. It is about OUR government. Even out founders knew there had to be checks and balances.

Forget for the moment that it is Trump.

Do you seriously think a president should have his authority to initiate a quick military response handcuffed by endless partisan bickering, rhetorical diatribes, and treasonous leaking of congress?

Think about the ramifications.

It would render any countries leader completely impotent.

The Justice Dept. advised POTUS about this guy in April of 2019, nine months ago. Why wait until now? Please don't use the Embassy attack as justification. He was just as dangerous nine months ago as he is now.

How is that, in any way, an answer to the question I posed?

originally posted by: Mach2

originally posted by: timidgal

originally posted by: pavil
a reply to: timidgal

There's no question that Gen. Qassem Soleimani had American blood on his hands, but such a blatant disregard of proper protocol, which provides for checks and balances, is unacceptable in this situation. I'm so tired of the tit for tat that's been going on in D.C.

The first part of that sentence says everything that needs to be said.

Pray tell, what protocol and checks and balances were needed to take out probably the number one formentor of trouble in the middle east who killed and maimed numerous US and Coalition Forces in Iraq and Afghanistan with those made in Iran IEDs?

Are you saying the Democratic leadership would have opposed this operation? Can't wait till they actually say that and seal their political fates.

Are we a renegade country? I agree that he was a despicable individual, but that's not what this is about. It is about OUR government. Even out founders knew there had to be checks and balances.

Forget for the moment that it is Trump.

Do you seriously think a president should have his authority to initiate a quick military response handcuffed by endless partisan bickering, rhetorical diatribes, and treasonous leaking of congress?

Think about the ramifications.

It would render any countries leader completely impotent.

Are you really willing to give this type of power to one person, regardless of who that person is?

a reply to: Liquesence

He really is a textbook case and quite transparent. They act like he is so deep and connieving and has such forethought when its apparent he flies by the seat of his pants and is quite impulsive. He reads like an adult with ADD.

a reply to: timidgal

Totally right!

I mean someday, if the nuclear balloon goes up in either China or Russia, I want to make sure that if we launch, it has been thoroughly debated by Congress and passed through both Houses in a proper bill before the president can sign off and authorize our response!

a reply to: TheRedneck

Congress does not have the power to wage war, nor the power to take military action where needed to protect the security of the United States of America. That power is vested in a President, who just so happens to be one Donald John Trump.

You’re right. It’s not like America ever asks permission from Congress to assassinate someone. This is squarely on Donald John Trump.

And thanks to him handing control of the drone program over to the CIA as one of his first actions as President, I’m sure this is just one of many cases. The only difference here is that this particular one can be used to his advantage in the news cycle.

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: scraedtosleep

What gives the potus the power to kill a terrorist without congress approval?

Article II, Section 1, Clause 8 of the Constitution of the United States of America

Before [the President] enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:—“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

Article II, Section 2, Clause 1 of the Constitution of the United States of America

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

Congress has the power to declare war, as per Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 of the Constitution of the United States of America

[The Congress shall have Power] To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

Congress does not have the power to wage war, nor the power to take military action where needed to protect the security of the United States of America. That power is vested in a President, who just so happens to be one Donald John Trump.

TheRedneck

The War Powers Resolution of 1973 is a federal law intended to check the president's power to commit the United States to an armed conflict without the consent of the U.S. Congress. The Resolution was adopted in the form of a United States Congressional joint resolution. It provides that the U.S. President can send the Armed Forces into action abroad only by declaration of war by Congress, "statutory authorization," or in case of "a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces."

This general has been plotting against us for years. He has planned and overseen the attack of 100's of our military troops. POTUS was fully briefed last April. Why the wait?

a reply to: underwerks

At least he didn't order the execution of American citizens.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: timidgal

So, in your expert opinion, just exactly why do we have a president then? It seems that every single thing the president does lately is something that only Congress or bureaucrats can do.

Do the research yourself. You can find a myriad of sites about presidential powers.

a reply to: CitizenZero

So that was forever? One act until the end of time?

I think not.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: underwerks

At least he didn't order the execution of American citizens.

Maybe he has. Since Donald John Trump handed over the drone program to the CIA for the stated purpose of less transparency I guess we’ll never know, will we?

So, the President has authority to act without congress in the case of imminent threats....which he was briefed about. Remember this guy just lead the attack on our embassy.

We had a drone knocked down by iran, no attack.
Our Ally's oil field was attacked by iran, no attck.
iran disrupted the oil shipping lanes, no attack.

Trump said his red line was attacking our people...that line got crossed...a contractor was killed a couple of weeks ago by iran. so, Trump sees the embassy attacked after an American was killed a few weeks back. He sees his red line crossed, and he responds.

He has shown more restraint than I would have. And yet, you go crazy because in the face of an imminent threat, he does what he has the power to do and you all cry foul.

Grow up.

MAGA

a reply to: timidgal

One of those is as CiC of the armed forces. It's a bit hard to do that if you have to check every decision you want to make through the Congress.

Sure the branches are separate but equal, but that doesn't mean every one has to gain the permission of every other one before acting in any small way. If that were the case, at what point does the SCOTUS have to confirm their rulings with the Congress or the Executive for example?

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: DBCowboy

I don't know why they're so upset. I mean, some people did some things in the Middle East, and at this point, what difference does it make?

It makes a difference to these guys.....

originally posted by: underwerks

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: underwerks

At least he didn't order the execution of American citizens.

Maybe he has. Since Donald John Trump handed over the drone program to the CIA for the stated purpose of less transparency I guess we’ll never know, will we?

Better call Adam Schiff. I'm sure he could use you as a whistleblower somehow in the next impeachment effort.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: timidgal

Totally right!

I mean someday, if the nuclear balloon goes up in either China or Russia, I want to make sure that if we launch, it has been thoroughly debated by Congress and passed through both Houses in a proper bill before the president can sign off and authorize our response!

If you read the verbiage I posted from the War Resolution Act, you would see that's not what I'm saying at all.

a reply to: olaru12

Yes, and the call to stand down in Benghazi made a huge difference to some guys too.

a reply to: timidgal

So the president can defend US soil on his own without being put on a Congressional leash?

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: underwerks

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: underwerks

At least he didn't order the execution of American citizens.

Maybe he has. Since Donald John Trump handed over the drone program to the CIA for the stated purpose of less transparency I guess we’ll never know, will we?

Better call Adam Schiff. I'm sure he could use you as a whistleblower somehow in the next impeachment effort.

So let me get this straight, you’re pro CIA drone program? You’re ok with the CIA being given authority to assassinate whoever, whenever with zero accountability?

That’s what you’re arguing in favor of.