Posted on 04/14/2018 7:29:42 AM PDT by MNDude
She added though “The Constitution gives Congress the power to authorize military action. If @realDonaldTrump wants to expand American military involvement in Syria’s civil war, he must seek approval from Congress – & provide a comprehensive strategy with clear goals & a plan to achieve them.”
Her comments were echoed by Senator Cory Booker of New Jersey, who said “I’m deeply concerned that President Trump continues to conduct military operations without any comprehensive strategy or the necessary congressional authorization.”
(Excerpt) Read more at theguardian.com ...
Obama wouldn’t have asked for it. He would have been outraged for Republicans to demand it.
Are these the same democrats who thought it was a good idea, until after he did it?
I believe he knew and entered the fray because he knew how bad it is.
Hey, it was different, zero only used those cute little drones. From the Huff post (sorry) in 2013 -
Obama, who was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 2009, has overseen the expansion of the CIA’s targeted killing program, which the Bureau of Investigative Journalism estimates has killed between 2,528 and 3,648 individuals in Pakistan since 2004. That organization also estimates that between 416 and 948 of those killed in drone strikes were civilians — an estimate disputed by the Obama administration.
Corey needs to worry more about Pompeo being mean to homos and let Trump do the heavy lifting as far as national security...
Ha, but these whining, condom sniffing, tide pod eating snowflakes stood silent while Bronco Bama used drones to take out US Citizens overseas
Shocking!
I’ll join the Democrats on this one, at least until someone can give me a reason why we need to be bombing them - other than repeating the lies from the Deep State regarding chemicals.
I wonder if he wasn’t hoping that one of the dwarfs would’ve stepped up and embraced the issues we Deplorables hold dear. I thought for awhile that Rand Paul would, but then for awhile he went full-tilt-DC crazy against President Trump.
Please don’t confuse my desire to get out as a way to help the people there. I am talking about unconditional pulling out. The political machine and the media here in the US have been saying the same thing on both sides of the aisle that we need to be there to do something. And nothing we’ve done so far has changed the thought process of the groups that are a threat to us.
In straight talk, we never should have been there to begin with. We don’t need their oil, we don’t need their dope, they don’t produce anything else we don’t already have or they have because we gave it to them. They don’t do anything we ask and lie about the issues they say they will do. Many are building a nuclear program to attack their neighbors and we are not only condoning it, we are aiding it. We are supporting the transfer of millions of people from the middle east taking jobs away from US citizens, and watching our economy going down with the hidden syphoning of worth and business.
I could do this all day. But the main fact still is we have no business getting involved with a civil war. They need to fix their problems themselves or destroy each other. And it will effect us not one bit. Cause we can’t do a thing about it and we’ve been trying for about 80 years at the least. Pavlov would be disappointed. But his dogs would understand more than the greedy, self centered people running our country. (And trying to run everyone elses)
rwood
His two attacks, last night and a year ago, were designed to thread the needle, to make a statement about chemical warfare ..... And why did he think HE had to do this?
Helping the people there is an outcome of the US doing the correct thing. That would be the nation-building that's been ignored in our own nation instead of trying to run the rest of the world. Those countries had leaders with a strong hand for a reason. That's what it takes to run a nation of headstrong advocates of their own agenda.
The US served the world best when we were a shining example of things they might want to achieve within their own nation. I doubt that anyone under age 40 or so even remembers the ideals the US used to aspire to.
What about that unilateral, unconstitutionally approved operation in Pakistan? You know, the one that took out UBL?
What about the aspirin factory. And so on and so forth.
Because it’s Trump, they want the rule of law to be a choke collar. If it were Hillary, they’d be jumping up and down and waving pom poms at whatever she did.
When we are in power is precisely the time to man up and start following the rule of law. Because once the socialists return, it’s a heavy restraint on them
Oh, how can you utter such blasphamy! The “Principled Conservatives” of this forum know better than anyone, especially the President or SecDef!
LOL...Mea Culpa...
“we were a shining example of things they might want to achieve within their own nation”
I’m a firm believer that the worst example we displayed was our not staying out of people’s business. Since WW II, where we were attacked, we have been fighting other country’s wars, most civil ones, and not gaining a thing from it except loss of funds and people. The list is huge:
Korea 50-53, Lebanon 1958, Vietnam 64-75, Granada and Beirut in 83, Libya in 86, Panama in 89, Gulf war 91, Somalia 93, Haiti 94, Kosovo in 99.....that’s enough to make a point. I didn’t get into the war on terrorism. Each one of these had nothing to do with us in any considered major need for troop intervention. But we went there and participated in action that had little, if anything, to do with us.
We are so busy riding in on our white horse to save the day that we fail to handle our own problems here at home. And in many cases, these little out world problems are used to hide the government inability to handle them or is a smoke screen for those they don’t want to handle for agenda reasons. Transparency? Not before Trump. He doesn’t have to hide anything. He’s busy turning over rocks to find the worms under them. And he has way too many rocks without the libs giving him accusations to have to address. And while he’s proving them wrong on every count over the last couple of years, we are spending money, time, and manpower for nothing. We spin our wheels, just like we’ve done for about 100 years.
The more it changes, the less gets done.
rwood
War Powers Act is also the Rule of Law. Every tactical strike on a limited, defined target is not a declaration of war. Such an ad hoc action can degenerate into a de facto war, and that’s where the War Powers Act comes in. Pancho Villa’s border raids were not responded to with a declaration, but an expedition. Neither were the strikes on Khadaffy. All perfectly legal.
We're 100% on the same page. As with most Empires, it's consuming us. China's the only country I can think of in history that wasn't destroyed by being an Empire. I pray that President Trump can turn it around. But more and more, the powers that be are making it impossible for him to achieve everything I believe that he wants to. I've never before had so much doubt about the intentions of "our" gov.
It was called “the containment of Communism” strategy, and it was necessary and successful.
The Soviet Union had to be contained until it fell from within.
Check your premises!
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.