I Applaud this Statement by Obama

#52
#52
bam15 said:
As this indicates, I think it is pretty apparent how out of touch he was with the actual governing of the Oval Office as candidate Obama.
Click to expand...

I believe that's very accurate. I also think lack of any executive experience hasn't helped very much
 
#54
#54
volinbham said:
I bet more blue chairs would have raised objections than red chairs on this one.
Click to expand...

red chairs are asking about exit strategies and the definition of victory, not complaining about not being consulted, possibly cutting off funding and bringing up the spectre of impeachment.
 
#56
#56
volinbham said:
I think Constitutionally he's fine; this is not technically a war and I've seen various Constitutional experts weigh in.
Click to expand...

fyp

And you can't be serious. Whether or not we want to label it a war, where does the president get power to do this?
 
#58
#58
The main beef here is the hypocrisy, I'm not arguing that. But calling this unconstitutional is flat wrong.
 
#59
#59
kev20 said:
waiting for lg's spin......
Click to expand...

You'll wait a long time then. Seems pretty contradictory to me.

If confronted, I'd imagine he would say its not the same thing making such comments when you are running as when you have to make the decision.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#60
#60
rjd970 said:
Some SF units compared against a 100,000 invasion force? Still not the same thing. If I had to bet, they aren't even actively engaging Ghaddafi forces, only painting targets for the fly boys.
Click to expand...

You're not old enough to remember Viet Nam are you? You should be able to remember the start of both actions against Iraq.
 
#61
#61
I am no fan of Obama, but he is doing the right thing.

You can have a changed perspective and not be a hypocrite.

It's not like he is doing any of this in secret. And this clearly has a lot to do with our interests a abroad, I am going to assume oil.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#62
#62
rjd970 said:
In fairness, this isn't even close to the same crap Bush did. In the scheme of things, we have only launched some missles and enforced a no-fly zone. Bush fully invaded two countries. One of which, turned out not to be as big a threat as advertised.
Click to expand...

rjd970 said:
Right now our involvement is similar to Bosnia. Ground forces and an invasion are not on the table. Not saying they won't be, but right now comparing Bush and Obama (Libya and Afgh/Iraq) isn't even close.
Click to expand...

rjd970 said:
Some SF units compared against a 100,000 invasion force? Still not the same thing. If I had to bet, they aren't even actively engaging Ghaddafi forces, only painting targets for the fly boys.
Click to expand...

rjd970 said:
No argument from me on that point. I am just pointing out the use of military force comparison isn't even on the same playing field at the moment.
Click to expand...

Obama just can't do any wrong in some peoples eyes , huh?. You know i bet the missiles that Obama fired are full of Confetti , ballons and candy to feed and entertain the Libyans too. Right?

The point that was being made was that Obama , like many other politicians,(ex.no new taxes by Bush sr.) lied.Do not spin it.

ALSO VPm Biden told Chris Mathews he would have impeached Bush for going to war w/o permission from Congressiden. wonder if he is getting the ball rolling on the Proceedings for Obama as we speak?
 
#63
#63
lawgator1 said:
If confronted, I'd imagine he would say its not the same thing making such comments when you are running as when you have to make the decision.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

you think he'll actually admit he didn't have the required experience when running to make proper decisions? you are high
 
#64
#64
Vols520 said:
I am no fan of Obama, but he is doing the right thing.

You can have a changed perspective and not be a hypocrite.

Yes but some admission of this generally accompanies the change in heart. My guess is that he stands by his earlier comments and would spin this differently.

It's not like he is doing any of this in secret. And this clearly has a lot to do with our interests a abroad, I am going to assume oil.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

Why lie about it then (humanitarian only)?

Also, I'd bet the oil would flow more quickly if we did nothing and Col. Q had a quick victory. We are setting up a long stale mate which will put the operation of the country (and it's oil) in question for some time.
 
#65
#65
Vols520 said:
I am no fan of Obama, but he is doing the right thing.

You can have a changed perspective and not be a hypocrite.

It's not like he is doing any of this in secret. And this clearly has a lot to do with our interests a abroad, I am going to assume oil.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

If he has a "changed perspective" than he should come out and publically acknowledge that his comments on Bush were totally wrong and apologize to him as loudly as he condemned him, i wont hold my breath though.

He clearly did this at request of The UN/NATO & not the USA, There was Clearly no emminent danger to US citizens here, which means he broke the law. Remember the people that elected congress is who he represents and serves not the UN. See if he takes it before the Congress , my representative, whom my district voted for has a voice in how and where my tax dollars go to & where my military Brothers and sisters are sent to fight.

on the oil deal, why was Bush demonized in his evil campaign for oil, but it hardly mentioned as motive for his actions and when it is mentioned it is like its no big deal, anybody else notice that?
 
#66
#66
MUR73 said:
If he has a "changed perspective" than he should come out and publically acknowledge that his comments on Bush were totally wrong and apologize to him as loudly as he condemned him, i wont hold my breath though.

I think that's a little extreme. No politician in history has done this. I would like to hear his explanation in terms of a larger articulation of "Obama Doctrine". That's my biggest beef - I simply don't know what he's trying to do or what his convictions are. As IP said in the Brazil thread, it seems like he completely compartmentalizes things without and larger view or strategy.


on the oil deal, why was Bush demonized in his evil campaign for oil, but it hardly mentioned as motive for his actions and when it is mentioned it is like its no big deal, anybody else notice that?
Click to expand...

It's an interesting point - no blood for oil.
 
#67
#67
droski said:
you think he'll actually admit he didn't have the required experience when running to make proper decisions? you are high
Click to expand...


No, I meant privately.

Seems like most politicians have made such statements in the past and then, once they get there and are faced with the realities actually coming to bear end up doing something inconsistent with what they said.

Not sure why that makes a difference here, really.
 
#68
#68
Vols520 said:
I am no fan of Obama, but he is doing the right thing.

You can have a changed perspective and not be a hypocrite.

It's not like he is doing any of this in secret. And this clearly has a lot to do with our interests a abroad, I am going to assume oil.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

That's not valid. Either it's unconstitutional or it's not. Now his opinion of whether or not the ends justify the means can change.
 
#70
#70
nbakerld said:
That's not valid. Either it's unconstitutional or it's not. Now his opinion of whether or not the ends justify the means can change.
Click to expand...


Every POTUS since Eisenhower has done something akin to this. To me, the wisdom of it is the far more important question at this point.
 
#73
#73
utvolpj said:
is it not a War Powers Res issue? I've seen it thrown around a few times but tbh haven't read enough about it
Click to expand...

That would be the grounds but at issue is:

is this legally a war?

if it is, the Constitutional remedy is that Congress can vote to defund and Obama would have 60 days to cease operations.

some debate about constitutionality of War Powers Res. itself and how it gets resolved.

tons of precedent where Congress did not authorize war but military action taken.
 
#74
#74
utvolpj said:
is it not a War Powers Res issue? I've seen it thrown around a few times but tbh haven't read enough about it
Click to expand...

The war powers res was passed by congress. This is merely a veil. For this type of power change to occur they would have to actually properly amend the constitution rather than just legislate. The resolution satisfies the masses, but not the written law.

I realize that almost every President since Truman has usurped power in this manner, but illegal actions done over and over without consequence don't suddenly make it legal.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top