quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
I know he's convinced that the Assad regime used the chem weapons. I just don't know, though. It seems way too early for that determination, imo. Too many conflicting reports.

quote:

ORIGINAL: FatDomDaddy
Well... is he calling for a joint session of Congress and asking them to declare war on Syria?


Please... speak right up?

I didn't think so.

If the President does that and the nation declares war, I shall support the war effort.

Why is that so hard for you to understand?

However, the President isn't doing anything of the sort.

quote:

ORIGINAL: FatDomDaddy

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice

quote:

I'll be composing my letters to the California Senators tomorrow (for all the good they'll do with those two )

At least you have senators to write to. [:)]

It seems to me the Founding Fathers had something to say about being taxed without representation in the taxing body.

They also had something to say about creating a Capitol City. See Residence Act of 1790 and An Act Concerning the District of Columbia 1801.

Maryland would be more than willing to get her land back and the tax revenues that go with it though...and then Washington, MD would have it's voting members of Congress.

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether
I believe all of you have not stop and thought through the President's actions. He made a very brilliant political move in dealing with the GOP and those Tea Party losers. He tested the waters about a strike. The Republicans in Congress started shouting out that he needed their approval; going to far as to threaten him with impeachment if they weren't given control of the final decision. The president does not need Congress's Approval on this unless it leads to a very long conflict (i.e. the Iraq War with G.W. Bush).
The President turns a no-win situation, politically speaking, into a 'call the Republican's Bluff'. In essence, they now own the problem whether they want to or not. Before he made this decision, the Republicans were ready to act in one of two ways:
A ) If the President decided to attack Syria, the Republicans would have bashed him non-stop until the election for having done it and being against the action.
B ) If the President decided not to attack Syria, the Republicans would have bashed him non-stop until the election for not having done something.
So the President went to Congress and allow them to decide. Which makes those Republicans whom bitched last week for this specific action look like fools. Even worst that they can not thank the President for this action if there tweets are any indication. That just shows he called their bluff. So what is the no-win situation now for the Republicans that allows the President to look good politically?
1 ) The Republicans authorize the President to take military action. If it is successful, everyone will remember it was the President's idea to ask Congress (even though he didn't have to) in the first place. Even more so that Republicans actually got something accomplished in Congress given their 15 successful votes on bills this year (normally its 190-260)!

quote:

2 ) The Republicans authorize the President to take military action. The whole thing goes south faster than you can say "Hillary has two terms in the White House"! The President asked Congress, and Republicans responded with the course of action. The GOP is looked upon as foolish and stupid to having taken this course of action.

quote:



The GOP isn't giving the course of action, but authorizing the President to use our Armed Forces. If the mission is a failure, it won't be the GOP that gets the blame. It will be the creators of the military strategy/plan we used. None of our elected leaders will likely be in charge of creating that. How is it that the GOP would be to blame anyway (considering that there will likely be Democrats also voting in support of authorization)? Giving Obama the green light to act isn't forcing Obama to act. He will still have the choice to act or not. If it goes bad, how does it bypass the Democrats and President Obama and fall on the GOP?

quote:

3 ) The Republicans do not authorize the military action. Either because they came to an agreement or failed to do even that! It sends a message to every future evil person with WMDs that the USA will not deal with them swiftly and completely. In addition, the rest of the world takes an even more diminished view of America being a good place to visit, spend money or invest. Oh, and they'll be responsible if Syria uses ANOTHER chemical weapon's attack.

According to Obama, he has all the authority he needs for military action. If the GOP does not authorize and President Obama does not use the authority he claims he has, then he'll also be sending that message, won't he?

You also forgot one:
4) The GOP does not authorize military action against the Assad regime. It turns out that the rebels were the ones to blame for the explosions. The GOP did the right thing. If Obama directs military action in defiance of the GOP's refusal, he'll have attacked the regime for using chemical weapons they didn't use, not punishing the actual ones responsible. That would also send the message that you can use WMD's and the US will not deal with you swiftly and completely as long as you can control who the US thinks did it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: crazyml

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
I know he's convinced that the Assad regime used the chem weapons. I just don't know, though. It seems way too early for that determination, imo. Too many conflicting reports.

Do you have access to the intel reports that the Prez is using?

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: crazyml

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
I know he's convinced that the Assad regime used the chem weapons. I just don't know, though. It seems way too early for that determination, imo. Too many conflicting reports.

Do you have access to the intel reports that the Prez is using?

The media, as has been posted, is showing the UN investigation team is leaning towards the rebels being behind it (they do admit that their evidence isn't conclusive yet). Now, Obama is basing his determination on CIA intel and interviews from locals. The UN team is basing it's determination on having investigated the blast zone(s) and interviews from locals. There is also a report that one of the rebel groups is admitting that it was the rebels.

I am not saying the President is wrong. I'm saying I don't know that he's right. Considering I believed W, way back when, I'm much more skeptical today. Even if it turns out I was wrong, at least I would have been wrong in a way that was "safer."

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: crazyml

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
I know he's convinced that the Assad regime used the chem weapons. I just don't know, though. It seems way too early for that determination, imo. Too many conflicting reports.

Do you have access to the intel reports that the Prez is using?

The media, as has been posted, is showing the UN investigation team is leaning towards the rebels being behind it (they do admit that their evidence isn't conclusive yet). Now, Obama is basing his determination on CIA intel and interviews from locals. The UN team is basing it's determination on having investigated the blast zone(s) and interviews from locals. There is also a report that one of the rebel groups is admitting that it was the rebels.
I am not saying the President is wrong. I'm saying I don't know that he's right. Considering I believed W, way back when, I'm much more skeptical today. Even if it turns out I was wrong, at least I would have been wrong in a way that was "safer."

The problem is where would the rebels have gotten a sarin artillery shell? You don't just whip up high purity sarin in that quantity in a small lab.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: crazyml

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
I know he's convinced that the Assad regime used the chem weapons. I just don't know, though. It seems way too early for that determination, imo. Too many conflicting reports.

Do you have access to the intel reports that the Prez is using?

The media, as has been posted, is showing the UN investigation team is leaning towards the rebels being behind it (they do admit that their evidence isn't conclusive yet). Now, Obama is basing his determination on CIA intel and interviews from locals. The UN team is basing it's determination on having investigated the blast zone(s) and interviews from locals. There is also a report that one of the rebel groups is admitting that it was the rebels.
I am not saying the President is wrong. I'm saying I don't know that he's right. Considering I believed W, way back when, I'm much more skeptical today. Even if it turns out I was wrong, at least I would have been wrong in a way that was "safer."

The problem is where would the rebels have gotten a sarin artillery shell? You don't just whip up high purity sarin in that quantity in a small lab.

Saudi Arabia, perhaps?

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri



I am not saying the President is wrong. I'm saying I don't know that he's right. Considering I believed W, way back when, I'm much more skeptical today. Even if it turns out I was wrong, at least I would have been wrong in a way that was "safer."

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
I can find nothing indicating SA has ever had any chemical weapons. So until I do I remain very skeptical.

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether
Oh, and they'll be responsible if Syria uses ANOTHER chemical weapon's attack.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
I can find nothing indicating SA has ever had any chemical weapons. So until I do I remain very skeptical.

I understand. I'm not saying Assad didn't use the chemical weapons. I'm not saying the rebels did. I'm saying there is too much conflicting information/reports, imo.

That's where my problem is. I'd much rather see us not act than act against the "wrong side," so to speak.

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic

Yeah, that's just fucking brilliant, Joether. A question of whether our nation should be getting involved in a civil war fought between a brutal dicatator and Al Qaeda shouldn't be considered in any frame other than of strict partisan gamesmanship...

You sicken me.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: crazyml

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
I know he's convinced that the Assad regime used the chem weapons. I just don't know, though. It seems way too early for that determination, imo. Too many conflicting reports.

Do you have access to the intel reports that the Prez is using?

The media, as has been posted, is showing the UN investigation team is leaning towards the rebels being behind it (they do admit that their evidence isn't conclusive yet). Now, Obama is basing his determination on CIA intel and interviews from locals. The UN team is basing it's determination on having investigated the blast zone(s) and interviews from locals. There is also a report that one of the rebel groups is admitting that it was the rebels.
I am not saying the President is wrong. I'm saying I don't know that he's right. Considering I believed W, way back when, I'm much more skeptical today. Even if it turns out I was wrong, at least I would have been wrong in a way that was "safer."

The problem is where would the rebels have gotten a sarin artillery shell? You don't just whip up high purity sarin in that quantity in a small lab.

Saudi Arabia, perhaps?

quote:

In PPL land, doing the right thing frequently takes a back seat to political expediency. It is a shame.