Skip to main content

View Diary: Sorry, John. Petraeus thinks you're wrong. (98 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  well somebody needs to ask the GOP, since we all (8+ / 0-)

    know how CONCERNED they are with the deficit and how much we spend. Somebody PLEASE ask them if we go in to Iraq, WHO is going to PAY FOR IT? Sounds like a reasonable question to me....

    •  The 99%, that's who... (7+ / 0-)

      ...in blood, sweat, toil, tears, and taxes.

      Float like a manhole cover, sting like a sash weight! Clean Coal Is A Clinker!

      by JeffW on Thu Jun 19, 2014 at 09:04:10 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Don't need to ask. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      NonnyO

      PBO has stated he doesn't need Congressional approval to go back to Iraq.

      Your question is best directed to the current liar in Chief.

      Obama Tells Congress He Doesn’t Need Permission for New Iraq War
      Existing Authorizations Are Still in Place
      by Jason Ditz, June 18, 2014

      Earlier this year, President Obama gave tentative support to the idea of repealing the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) against Iraq, noting that the war was over. Congress never pulled the trigger, with hawks arguing against it.

      Tonight, on the eve of a new US military operation in Iraq, President Obama is arguing he doesn’t need any Congressional authorization for his new foray into Iraq, since the old AUMF is still on the books.

      Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R – KY) and House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi (D – CA) agreed with this assessment, saying the AUMF still applied, and that President Obama was just telling Congressional leaders what he plans to do.

      President Obama has long downplayed the need for Congressional approval for his military adventures, and publicly eschewed any vote on US involvement in the attack on Libya, saying NATO’s decision to attack obliged the US to war no matter what Congress thought.

      The administration’s exact intentions in Iraq remain unclear, as they have withheld public pledges trying to coax Iraqi reforms, and most recently. the ouster of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. They have ruled out “combat troops,” but seem to be willing to split hairs by arguing that ground troops they do send won’t technically be combat troops.

      http://news.antiwar.com/...

      •  There is NO provision in Article I (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Skippah

        ... that allows for a transfer of war powers and how to pay for an illegal and unconstitutional war to be transferred to a president.

        The AUMFs were passed because going after a little criminal gang (Al Qaeda) that claimed their people had committed the heinous criminal acts on 9/11 were done so for the simple reason the little criminal gang had NO connection to any country and their members were NOT part of any country's military forces.

        I don't believe the AUMFs are constitutional, but that's all they've got to go on to claim a president can "legally" send troops to another country without Congress declaring a war.

        IMHO, the AUMFs should all be repealed in their entirety... along with repealing all the bad laws passed that took away our rights.  [I'm old and I want my rights restored before I die sometime in the next 32 years.]

        I'm sick of attempts to steer this nation from principles evolved in The Age of Reason to hallucinations derived from illiterate herdsmen. ~ Crashing Vor

        by NonnyO on Thu Jun 19, 2014 at 09:37:10 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site