Community Messageboard: Edit of "The only 'point' you have is the talking points...;" clearly those were not the sole points, by Joel

Back to Messageboard

Post New Thread

Help

Stats

Rules

"The only 'point' you have is the talking points...;" clearly those were not the sole points, - Edit 1

Before modification by Joel at 03/09/2013 10:11:13 PM

I pretend to no absolute objectivity, but dismissing ALL the comments as purely partisan rhetoric is misrepresentation.

View original post

View original postGeez, it is like the annual budget talks: "We are not satisfied with 90% of our demands: We insist on ALL of them in exchange for NOTHING; why are you so incapable of compromise?!!!" The Yasser Arafat School of Diplomacy.

Yes, Obama is vaccilating and passing the buck; pretty sure I already said that, point blank. That does not make Congressional Republicans any less transparently hypocritical when they blast him for doing they very thing they just spent months threatening to impeach him if he did NOT do.

Allow me to summarize about six months of US debate on whether to bomb Syria:

Obama: I do not have the balls to decide whether to do it or not.

Republicans: No problem; whichever you choose, it still proves you a bastard.

If that is not good enough because it does not blame Obama for everything and Republicans for nothing, we are at an impasse.

Talking points
"What the presient is getting criticized for now and always is being a Democrat. While I agree all presidents have constitutional authority as commander-in-chief to order combat without Congressional consent, Republicans calling for impeachment if any Democrat (and only a Democrat) does so disagree."

Because it is not true.

Clinton was impeached for the felony crime of perjury, not for any of the hundred or so military missions that he legally ordered. He was criticized for several of them (bombing an aspirin factory, which inspired the movie Wag the Dog is an example). Or for how he had the military missions prosecuted, Kosovo, Somalia & Yugoslavia (why can't we just stay out of other people's civil wars) among them; especially when he chose to subordinate US Military men to UN commanders and (and their INCREDIBLY stupid ROEs).

Okay, I grant Clinton faced no formal impeachment charges for military operations, but facing impeachment investigations for practically EVERYTHING ELSE illustrates my point. Not that I had his trial in mind (nor have any desire to rehash it,) but the House appointed a special prosecutor to investigate a real estate deal and found nothing, so was that the end of it? No; it simply went to investigating a consensual sexual relationship, then another when that investigation again found nothing criminal, then a third when that one ended the same way, before finally indicting Clinton for perjury allegedly committed in the final investigation.

So a 1994 investigation of early '80s events indicted Clinton for a 1998 event during the fourth and final investigation—and could not even convict him of that. The most he was ever found guilty of was misleading testimony, but perjury has a much higher standard of proof: Concealing the truth under oath is VERY different from knowingly and intentionally swearing falsehoods. That did not prevent Republicans spending FIVE YEARS trying every way they could find to impeach him, even if the only politician brought down was their own House Speaker AND his successor.

View original postYou have not once seen me speak out in favor of impeaching Obama, and you won't until he has actually committed a criminal act. Leaving people to hang like he did in Libya is not criminal, just cowardly. Maybe he committed something criminal in the aftermath to cover up his moral cowardice (isn't that how it usually works? The cover-up is worse than the offense), but if so we have not seen it yet. Same for the actions at the IRS (lots of smoke, but still no fire, even with what has been reported about his brother). Even Fast & Furious was not criminal (though the lies afterwards might have been), just stupid. That statement describes most of Obama's scandals. There have been a few fools in Congress that have openly mentioned the possibility, IF evidence is found of criminal acts, but none have actually called for it, except for media personalities and morons, just like with the "Arrest Bush and Cheney for war crimes" morons on the left.

Congrats for respecting the Constitution; I wish all Republicans did, particularly those on the House floor suggesting or even urging impeachment over Benghazi, drones and anything else that comes to their minds. Obama left no one hanging in Benghazi; he just sent no more US personnel when news arrived of terrorism that had ALREADY killed our Benghazi consular staff. Blame for those deaths lies with the terrorists, and House Republicans who refused embassy security funding for TWO YEARS despite the president and Secy. of State begging them not to allow something like Benghazi. For a Republican Representative to respond to Benghazi by declaring embassy security a nonpriority but impeaching the president a valid response is hypocritically exploitive—yet typical.

There are not just some partisan extremists chanting in front of the White House, nor even a congressional loose cannon like Kucinich (I will not count McKinney since Democrats had the grace to expel her from the party; pity Republicans will not do the same with paranoid radicals.) One cannot simultaneously praise ones GOP Representative for pledges to block anything and everything Obama AND deny s/he has done just that. "It never happened and I am proud it did"?

View original post"Syria is the latest variation on a tired theme: First Obama should be impeached because he will not act, then because he will and now because seeking the very congressional approval the GOP demanded he seek. Seriously, wtf do they want from him? Even doing just as they command earns only continual public denunciation."

Nope. Nobody, that I recall, called for his impeachment for not acting, Concern was voiced that he was going to ignore the war Powers resolution (Like he did with Libya) and not consult with Congress prior to beginning non-urgent offensive military actions. However, he could not be impeached for it, and everyone with 1/5th a brain knows it. The War Powers resolution is not enforceable, and exists as pure PR.

I agree it is not impeachable, but apparently Kucinich and the House GOP majority both lack even 1/5th of a brain (a sadly plausible charge:)
https://www.google.no/search?q=impeachment+syria+obama&oq=impeachment+syria+obama&aqs=chrome..69i57j0.4017j0&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

View original postI think that the President should seek a declaration of war from Congress before imitating non-defensive military action (I see attacking them before they can attack me, if I know they are likely to do so, as defensive though). Examples of actions that i think should have required an actual Declaration of War would be Korea, Viet Nam, Grenada, Gulf 1 & 2, Somalia, Kosovo, Libya, etc. Basically every one of the BS we have used a our military on since WW2 (which was our last declared war). If the President had to go before the Congress and get a declaration, he might not flex those military muscles so often, and if Congress had to surrender as much authority to the Executive branch as it does in a time of declared war, they might just quit playing politics, and try to end the fucker instead. HOWEVER, the Constitution gives him the authority to attack ANYONE (except the US people not in active rebellion)he choses for whatever reason (even if it is just that his morning coffe is cold so he wanted more fresh beans from Columbia).

Unless we decode a foreign communique like "Attack the US at dawn" the need for preemptive strikes is always speculative and thus subjective, therefore defining defensive combat to include them renders the term "defensive" practically meaningless. Remember, the whole point of the WPR was to prevent things like the Gulf of Tonkin casus belli. The WPR is an excellent policy but, as you say, not legally worth the paper on which it is written, hence multiple presidents have violated it multiple times with impunity. Reagan even did so in Libya just as Obama did, but without criticism from Congressional Republicans OR DEMOCRATS, and certainly no suggestions of impeachement.

View original postAs for your continued complaint about how Congress won't let Obama do whatever he wants to do, again I can only say GOOD. That is exactly why I voted for my Congressman. I completely disagree with virtually every single policy decision this administration has made. Compared to him I think Carter was an 'effin GENIUS, Ford was Machiavelli, hell, even Millard Filmore would have been preferable to this clown. I used to be able to at least say he could give a good speech but lately he hasn't even been able to do that. He is a complete incompetent, surrounded by morons & crooks, and that is my "generous" opinion of him. I WANT him blocked by the House, that is why I voted for the representative I did, he promised to do just that. If he ever stops blocking Obama's agenda, I will vote for someone who will block it. I want the house to prevent every single stupid thing he tries to do, until he stops doing stupid things; so far he has not done so.

Clear enough?

Right; Congressional Republicans do not oppose anything and everything Obama attempts solely because HE attempts it, yet nobly do EXACTLY that.

Last word is yours if you like, because this is clearly going nowhere fast.

Return to message