Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Rubio: ‘If I Was in Charge’, U.S. Would Have Intervened in Syria Earlier
Cybercast News Service ^ | June 17, 2013 4:32 PM | Fred Lucas

Posted on 06/17/2013 7:59:40 PM PDT by Olog-hai

Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) said if he were president, he would have intervened in Syria much sooner than President Obama did to identify the “reasonable” rebels opposed to the regime of President Basher Assad.

“It behooved us to kind of identify whether there was any elements there within Syria fighting against Assad that we could work with—reasonable people that wouldn’t carry out human rights violations and could be part of building a new Syria. We failed to do that,” Rubio told Jonathan Karl on ABC News’ “This Week.” …

Obama announced this week that the Assad regime had crossed the “red line” and the U.S. now has conclusive evidence the country used chemical weapons. …

(Excerpt) Read more at cnsnews.com ...


TOPICS: Foreign Affairs; Government; News/Current Events; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: clueless; fakewarhawk; knowitallpunk; obamaspeople; rop; rubio; syria; terrorism; threatmatrix
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100101-115 last
To: Olog-hai

ANOTHER good reason NOT to vote for Rubio. As if we didn’t have enough already.


101 posted on 06/18/2013 8:15:17 AM PDT by Little Ray (How did I end up in this hand-basket, and why is it gettingthe so hot?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: melsec

LOL, where do I go with that...

He fails the test of Conservatism on this one topic alone.

What good is it if he believes as I do on everything else. He’s about to hand the Democrats perpetual power.

We’ll see how his other beliefs prosper then.


102 posted on 06/18/2013 8:17:58 AM PDT by DoughtyOne (Speaker John Boehner (R) no (D) no (R)... has more waffles than IHOP.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai
Conjecture and opinion.

Conjecture and opinion is believing that there are other remedies outside of those provided in the Constitution. The Constitution gives the method of removing someone from office. You claim that since it doesn't specifically exclude other methods then those are left to the states. That is just not so. It's like saying the Constitution specifies the manner in which a state may be admitted, but since it doesn't specifically say that a territory cannot become a state merely by ratifying the Constitution and sending representatives to Congress then such a method is acceptable. It isn't.

The 10th Amendment says that powers not delegated to the United States are reserved to the states unless prohibited. The Constitution says that the ability to remove a sitting official is a power reserved to the United States, as outlined in the impeachment process. Therefore it is not a power allowed to the states.

103 posted on 06/18/2013 8:36:34 AM PDT by 0.E.O
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai
Only if the US Constitution prohibits recall.

The Constitution specifies how elected officials may be removed.

Recall is not listed.

In 224 years, there has never been a recall of an elected federal official -- for a reason.

104 posted on 06/18/2013 9:49:03 AM PDT by okie01 (The Mainstream Media: IGNORANCE ON PARADE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: okie01

Again, “not listed” does not mean disallowed. The Constitution is formatted as “negative liberties” for a reason. There have not been recalls due to being disallowed by the Constitution; there have been no recalls due to no calls for recall.


105 posted on 06/18/2013 10:02:21 AM PDT by Olog-hai
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: glyptol
Hate is to strong an emotion. Disgust is better. IMHO

Well, I "hate" to say it, but Romney is better than this guy.

106 posted on 06/18/2013 10:03:55 AM PDT by Mr. Jeeves (CTRL-GALT-DELETE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: 0.E.O

Conjecture and opinion is believing that there are other remedies outside of those provided in the Constitution
The Constitution is not a be-all-and-end-all grant of absolute authority to the USA’s central government. Therefore, there are other remedies, when they do not contradict the federal law (per the Supremacy Clause), and recall does not do so since it does not act against the federal government’s authority in this vein.

The 10th Amendment says that powers not delegated to the United States are reserved to the states unless prohibited. The Constitution says that the ability to remove a sitting official is a power reserved to the United States, as outlined in the impeachment process. Therefore it is not a power allowed to the states
Bottom line is that recall election is not the same thing as impeachment, and since the federal law does not explicitly prohibit it, it is simply not prohibited.

Incidentally, the Tenth Amendment says that such rights are reserved to the states or the people.

And as for Rubio, I ackowledged already that Florida has no recall process in its set of state laws. Either way, the people could initiate it of their own volition.
107 posted on 06/18/2013 10:11:21 AM PDT by Olog-hai
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai
Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) said if he were president, he would have intervened in Syria much sooner than President Obama did to identify the “reasonable” rebels opposed to the regime of President Basher Assad.

Like I said some days ago, when elected representatives go to DC they must get a lobotomy before entering the capitol.

5.56mm

108 posted on 06/18/2013 10:20:29 AM PDT by M Kehoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai
Therefore, there are other remedies, when they do not contradict the federal law (per the Supremacy Clause), and recall does not do so since it does not act against the federal government’s authority in this vein.

Can a state recall a president then? Say, for example, it's 2003 and the people of New Hampshire are fed up with George Bush. So they launch a recall election and it passes, and the result is they take their 4 electoral votes away from Bush. At that point Bush does not have the requisite 268 electoral votes. Does that throw the election to the Congress 3 years after the fact? Nothing in the Constitution specifically says that New Hampsire can't do that. So by your definition then shouldn't it be possible?

Bottom line is that recall election is not the same thing as impeachment, and since the federal law does not explicitly prohibit it, it is simply not prohibited.

I'm sorry, you are simply wrong in that.

Incidentally, the Tenth Amendment says that such rights are reserved to the states or the people.

Unless it is a power delegated to the United States. And impeachment is. Impechment is the only constitutionally-approved way of removing a sitting official from office.

And as for Rubio, I ackowledged already that Florida has no recall process in its set of state laws. Either way, the people could initiate it of their own volition.

They can. In 2016 when he is up for re-election. Voting him out of office in the general election is the only recall option open to them. Or any other state.

109 posted on 06/18/2013 10:49:44 AM PDT by 0.E.O
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai

Rubio is proving that he’s a slick talker .... but basically an idiot. Hopefully in his next job he’ll be selling used cars.


110 posted on 06/18/2013 11:15:43 AM PDT by kjam22 (my newest music video:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l7gNI9bWO3s)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Aria

Agree... there is no good side. There are no “moderates we can work with” there. Our nation’s best interest is for them to all kill each other..... quickly. Whatever we can do to help that along is what is best for our country.


111 posted on 06/18/2013 11:18:40 AM PDT by kjam22 (my newest music video:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l7gNI9bWO3s)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai
What foolishness ! This is politics and electioneering.

How do you distinguish between "reasonable" and un-reasonable in a place where people cannibalize their enemies, eating their organs, and on camera at that ?

The "reasonable" ones are the ones who don't do it on camera without their faces being obscured in the photo lab.

112 posted on 06/18/2013 11:21:18 AM PDT by John Leland 1789
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai
I concede.

Go ahead and try to recall Rubio.

Never mind that the Constitution doesn't provide for recall of a U.S. Senator.

But you know better...

Good luck.

113 posted on 06/18/2013 7:11:05 PM PDT by okie01 (The Mainstream Media: IGNORANCE ON PARADE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne

Almost 2 years to the day since one of my last posts and yes the Neo-Cons still contoll the GOP. Some things never change.


114 posted on 12/07/2015 7:33:13 PM PST by ImpBill (The Republic - RIP!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: ImpBill

I agree, and great to see you here.

Thanks for the note.

Hope to see many more.


115 posted on 12/07/2015 8:38:14 PM PST by DoughtyOne (Come on Obama, just fess up and put the Burka on. Be honest with everyone.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 114 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100101-115 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson