• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Obama's air strike plans in disarray after Britain rejects use of force in Syria

RJKarl said:
He should be tried at The Hague.

If not for Republicans being such cowardly pussies. GITMO would be closed. Those who need to be in jail would be in super max and the rest would housed other places.
Click to expand...

The Democratic cowardly pussies were in control of Congress when Obama moved to close Gitmo.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/promise/177/close-the-guantanamo-bay-detention-center/
"Washington Post and ProPublica, White House regroups on Guantanamo , Sept. 25, 2009

Congress balks at Obama's plan
Updated: Wednesday, May 20th, 2009 | By Catharine Richert

President Barack Obama's plan to close the detention center at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, has run into significant opposition, most notably from members of his own party who stripped millions of dollars to shutter the facility from a war funding bill.

Closing the prison has been one of Obama's signature issues since he was a candidate. On January 20, 2009, the day he was sworn in, he directed prosecutors to file a motion to suspend legal proceedings against the suspected terrorists held at the facility. Two days later, the administration issued an executive order to review the disposition of the prisoners and ordered that the facility be shut down within a year.

For weeks, Republicans have opposed Obama's plan, voicing concern that the administration has not said what will happen to the approximately 240 detainees housed at the center.

"The president, unwisely, in my view, announced an arbitrary timeline for closing Guantanamo of next January without a plan to deal with the terrorists who are incarcerated down there," said Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell.

House Democrats have similar concerns; they refused to include the $80 million requested by the administration to close the facility in the war spending bill. Senate Democrats initially included the money in their $91.3 billion version of the measure, but then stripped it out by a 90-6 vote on May 20.

"This is neither the time nor the bill to deal with this," said Democratic leader Harry Reid. "Democrats under no circumstances will move forward without a comprehensive, responsible plan from the president," ...
 
Last edited:
Revealed: Pentagon knew in 2012 that it would take 75,000 GROUND TROOPS to secure Syria's chemical weapons facilities

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...2-75-000-ground-troops-secure-facilities.html
Securing Syria's chemical weapons stockpiles and the facilities that produced them would likely require the U.S. to send more than 75,000 ground troops into the Middle Eastern country, MailOnline learned Wednesday.

That estimate comes from a secret memorandum the U.S. Department of Defense prepared for President Obama in early 2012.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The War Powers Resolution, which passed the Senate Foreign Relations Committee late Wednesday on a bipartisan 10-7 vote, includes text noting that it 'does not authorize the use of the United States Armed Forces on the ground in Syria for the purpose of combat operations.'

If President Obama were to deploy ground forces in Syria, the final words of that phrase – 'for the purpose of combat operations' – could become a loophole large enough to drive a Humvee through.

Speaking to the committee on Tuesday as he made the case for a congressional authorization to bomb critical Syrian military sites, Kerry seemed to leave open the possibility that 'boots on the ground' could be marshaled specifically to secure chemical weapons stockpiles 'in the event Syria imploded, for instance.'

Kerry also mused on a scenario in which 'there was a threat of a chemical weapons cache falling into the hands of al-Nusra or someone else and it was clearly in the interest of our allies and all of us – the British, the French and others – to prevent those weapons of mass destruction falling into the hands of the worst elements.'

'I don’t want to take off the table an option that might or might not be available to a president of the United States to secure our country,' Kerry concluded.
Click to expand...
 
BillBrasky said:
RJ might want to just go hide in a hole for a while
Click to expand...

saddam_spider_hole.jpg
 
WFU71 said:
"This is neither the time nor the bill to deal with this," said Democratic leader Harry Reid. "Democrats under no circumstances will move forward without a comprehensive, responsible plan from the president," ...
Click to expand...

RJowned.
 
jhmd2000 said:
Is anyone else concerned that the President looked into the camera yesterday and tried to convince the other 6 billion Earthlings that they all collectively mis-remembered him looking into a different camera last year and drawing (TOTALLY NOT DRAWING!) a red line on chemical weapons?

Are we really going to war to defend the President's credibility on a statement he no longer stands behind? I am starting to miss Susan Rice.
Click to expand...

i thought that was incredibly weak sauce as well.

Here's an interview with an anti-humanitarian-bombing Democratic Representative. This sums up my feelings, and I think the feelings of a very large portion of the US electorate. http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/09/the-democratic-congressman-who-thinks-he-can-stop-the-syria-war/279309/

Quote:
But the fact is, no one has been able to come up with a game plan here that makes any sense. If we could end suffering in Syria through a military strike, that would be a decision worth thinking about. But no one is suggesting that's going to happen here. No one is suggesting this will end the dictatorship. No one is suggesting this will defeat the al-Nusra rebels who want sharia law and no rights for women. No one is suggesting this will actually prevent a gas attack in the future. No one is suggesting this will do much of anything except give a slap on the wrist to [Syrian President Bashar al-]Assad in hopes that maybe something good will come out of that. I actually would support humanitarian aid to the refugees. There are 2 million of them in Jordan and Turkey right now, and I think they could use our help. My concept of humanitarian aid is food, medicine, shelter, clothing, not bombs. The concept of a humanitarian war, humanitarian bombs, humanitarian missiles, is bizarre to me. I don't support it.
 
Last edited:
Senate-crafted Syria resolution riddled with loopholes for Obama

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/sep/4/senate-crafted-syria-resolution-riddled-loopholes-/
“Wiggle room? Plenty of that,” said Louis Fisher, scholar in residence at the Constitution Project and former long-time expert for the Congressional Research Service on separation of powers issues.
------------------------------------

“What could possibly be the meaning of ‘limited and tailored?’ I doubt if I’ve ever seen the word ‘tailored’ in a bill,” said Mr. Fisher, a veteran of four decades of studying legislation. “Even if the ‘intent’ of Congress is a limited war, war has its own momentum.”

Mr. Fisher pointed to the 1964 resolution that authorized a limited response to the Gulf of Tonkin, but that ended up being the start of an escalation of U.S. involvement in the Vietnam war. Mr. Fisher said he wasn’t drawing a comparison, but said it was instructive to look at what Congress thought it was authorizing and what eventually developed.
------------------------------------

But Jack Goldsmith, a law professor at Harvard University, said the way the resolution is written doesn’t necessarily force Mr. Obama to live by the 90-day limit because once the time frame is up, he could still make the same case as in Libya that he wasn’t engaged in hostilities.
------------------------------------

Rep. Charles B. Rangel, New York Democrat, said he sees avenues for military strikes to lead to combat troops.

“No one can judge the reaction of the country that you attack, especially irresponsible people,” he said on MSNBC. “We’re dealing with a civil war. We have no idea who wants to overthrow this madman. … Once you get in, all these resolutions mean nothing. We’re going to send troops to protect our people whenever we can, and you know it and I know it.”

Both Mr. Goldsmith and Mr. Fisher said the Senate resolution also appears to give up significant constitutional ground to Mr. Obama in the “whereas” clauses when the measure says “the president has authority under the Constitution to use force in order to defend the national security interests of the United States.”
Click to expand...
 
RJKarl said:
All the pussies in Congress. How's that?
Click to expand...

I realize you have tons of posters blocked and can't see many of the posts on this thread that have occurred since you were owned by WFU71 (this one included), but how about using the damn quote button so people know who you are responding to.
 
WFU71 said:
The Democratic cowardly pussies were in control of Congress when Obama moved to close Gitmo.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/promise/177/close-the-guantanamo-bay-detention-center/
"Washington Post and ProPublica, White House regroups on Guantanamo , Sept. 25, 2009

Congress balks at Obama's plan
Updated: Wednesday, May 20th, 2009 | By Catharine Richert

President Barack Obama's plan to close the detention center at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, has run into significant opposition, most notably from members of his own party who stripped millions of dollars to shutter the facility from a war funding bill.

Closing the prison has been one of Obama's signature issues since he was a candidate. On January 20, 2009, the day he was sworn in, he directed prosecutors to file a motion to suspend legal proceedings against the suspected terrorists held at the facility. Two days later, the administration issued an executive order to review the disposition of the prisoners and ordered that the facility be shut down within a year.

For weeks, Republicans have opposed Obama's plan, voicing concern that the administration has not said what will happen to the approximately 240 detainees housed at the center.

"The president, unwisely, in my view, announced an arbitrary timeline for closing Guantanamo of next January without a plan to deal with the terrorists who are incarcerated down there," said Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell.

House Democrats have similar concerns; they refused to include the $80 million requested by the administration to close the facility in the war spending bill. Senate Democrats initially included the money in their $91.3 billion version of the measure, but then stripped it out by a 90-6 vote on May 20.

"This is neither the time nor the bill to deal with this," said Democratic leader Harry Reid. "Democrats under no circumstances will move forward without a comprehensive, responsible plan from the president," ...
Click to expand...

You don't understand. When the President made a big show of signing an order to close Gtmo within the first year of his Presidency---fulfilling his prominent campaign promise to do so----when he had both House of Congress under his Party's control, it's the Republican Party's fault it didn't happen. B/c...., well,....let me explain....it's like this....



Try to keep up.
 
WFU71 said:
Agree they're all pussies, but it would appear the administration didn't have any real plan.
Click to expand...

They had a plan but they couldn't get it started. They clearly wanted to close GITMO, try the detainees, send some home and some to US prisons.

Congress pussied out.

How Reid is still majority leader baffles me. Her must have a ton of Barkley Defense material on other senators.
 
http://www.salon.com/2012/07/23/the_obama_gitmo_myth/

From that noted conservative publication:

"During the Bush years, the plight of these detainees was a major source of political controversy, but under Obama, it is now almost entirely forgotten. On those rare occasions when it is raised, Obama defenders invoke a blatant myth to shield the President from blame: he wanted and tried so very hard to end all of this, but Congress would not let him. Especially now that we’re in an Election Year, and in light of very recent developments, it’s long overdue to document clearly how misleading that excuse is."
 
meanwhile, WSJ is reporting that Assad has now moved all his stuff around, including into hardened bunkers, so they're going to have to fly USAF bombers (from Kansas, probably) in combination with the Tomahawks, and we'll have to use a lot more Tomahawks.

Each Tomahawk costs about $1.2 million. Don't know how much it costs to fly a bomber round trip from Kansas, with accompanying refueling, but it's probably somewhere between a shitload and $Texas.

This is what happens when you draw "red lines" without thinking or getting any international support for your drawings, and then are totally unprepared to take action when they are crossed.
 
Deacon923 said:
meanwhile, WSJ is reporting that Assad has now moved all his stuff around, including into hardened bunkers, so they're going to have to fly USAF bombers (from Kansas, probably) in combination with the Tomahawks, and we'll have to use a lot more Tomahawks.

Each Tomahawk costs about $1.2 million. Don't know how much it costs to fly a bomber round trip from Kansas, with accompanying refueling, but it's probably somewhere between a shitload and $Texas.

This is what happens when you draw "red lines" without thinking or getting any international support for your drawings, and then are totally unprepared to take action when they are crossed.
Click to expand...

yup. clusterfuck, Obama. He had to say that shit to get the AIPAC support he needed. Wasn't it at the AIPAC conference where he first started saying it?
 
Deacon923 said:
meanwhile, WSJ is reporting that Assad has now moved all his stuff around, including into hardened bunkers, so they're going to have to fly USAF bombers (from Kansas, probably) in combination with the Tomahawks, and we'll have to use a lot more Tomahawks.

Each Tomahawk costs about $1.2 million. Don't know how much it costs to fly a bomber round trip from Kansas, with accompanying refueling, but it's probably somewhere between a shitload and $Texas.

This is what happens when you draw "red lines" without thinking or getting any international support for your drawings, and then are totally unprepared to take action when they are crossed.
Click to expand...

Well, at least he has gone through a similar experience with Obamacare, so he has that going for him.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top