It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Double Talk in DC

page: 3
11
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 3 2020 @ 12:56 PM
link   
a reply to: 0zzymand0s




On congressional authorization, the White House has said Obama acted within his authority under the War Powers Act, noting that the president and other officials consulted congressional leaders several times in the run-up to the March 19 deployment of U.S. forces to the U.N.-authorized Libya mission.

Did trump consult any congress members?

I'm not trying to bring him down you guys but we need to know the facts, do we not?
Was this done legally?




Definition of War Powers Act Noun A federal law limiting the president’s power to deploying armed forces for the purposes of war.

legaldictionary.net...

I'm reading through this but don't see anything that gives a potus this authority to act apart from congress approval. Not yet anyway.




posted on Jan, 3 2020 @ 01:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: CitizenZero
a reply to: timidgal

Defending US diplomats and US citizens in a war zone is the proper protocol for any president. He did the right thing. Let the chips fall where they may.


He needed Congressional approval. Period.



posted on Jan, 3 2020 @ 01:00 PM
link   
a reply to: scraedtosleep




Did trump consult any congress members? I'm not trying to bring him down you guys but we need to know the facts, do we not? Was this done legally?


Congress approved the use of military force in Iraq back in 2002.



posted on Jan, 3 2020 @ 01:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: timidgal

originally posted by: pavil
a reply to: timidgal

There's no question that Gen. Qassem Soleimani had American blood on his hands, but such a blatant disregard of proper protocol, which provides for checks and balances, is unacceptable in this situation. I'm so tired of the tit for tat that's been going on in D.C.


The first part of that sentence says everything that needs to be said.

Pray tell, what protocol and checks and balances were needed to take out probably the number one formentor of trouble in the middle east who killed and maimed numerous US and Coalition Forces in Iraq and Afghanistan with those made in Iran IEDs?

Are you saying the Democratic leadership would have opposed this operation? Can't wait till they actually say that and seal their political fates.


Are we a renegade country? I agree that he was a despicable individual, but that's not what this is about. It is about OUR government. Even out founders knew there had to be checks and balances.


Forget for the moment that it is Trump.

Do you seriously think a president should have his authority to initiate a quick military response handcuffed by endless partisan bickering, rhetorical diatribes, and treasonous leaking of congress?

Think about the ramifications.

It would render any countries leader completely impotent.
edit on 132020 by Mach2 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 3 2020 @ 01:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: timidgal

originally posted by: CitizenZero
a reply to: timidgal

Defending US diplomats and US citizens in a war zone is the proper protocol for any president. He did the right thing. Let the chips fall where they may.


He needed Congressional approval. Period.


Congress approved the use of military force in Iraq back in 2002.



posted on Jan, 3 2020 @ 01:02 PM
link   
a reply to: scraedtosleep


What gives the potus the power to kill a terrorist without congress approval?

Article II, Section 1, Clause 8 of the Constitution of the United States of America

Before [the President] enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:—“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

Article II, Section 2, Clause 1 of the Constitution of the United States of America

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

Congress has the power to declare war, as per Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 of the Constitution of the United States of America

[The Congress shall have Power] To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

Congress does not have the power to wage war, nor the power to take military action where needed to protect the security of the United States of America. That power is vested in a President, who just so happens to be one Donald John Trump.

TheRedneck



posted on Jan, 3 2020 @ 01:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: underwerks
a reply to: Nickn3


I say give President Trump a chance.


Almost 4 years into a Presidential term and we’re still on the “give President Trump a chance” thing.

Nice.


Well Obama did say that if he didn't fix the economy in his first term he'd be a one-term president, but y'all gave him four more years in spite of that. So I don't understand the problem?



posted on Jan, 3 2020 @ 01:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: scraedtosleep
a reply to: DBCowboy

What gives the potus the power to kill a terrorist without congress approval?


So everything the president does, is only after congress gives permission?

*checks Constitution again*


No, but the The War Powers Resolution of 1974, a federal law, does require that Congress be consulted before any military action, except in cases of imminent danger.



posted on Jan, 3 2020 @ 01:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: 0zzymand0s
a reply to: scraedtosleep

Looks like (then) Secretary of State Clinton?




After Wednesday's briefing, legislators said Clinton told them the administration acted within the requirements of the War Powers Act and needed no congressional authorization for further decisions on the mission.


edition.cnn.com...


This is another area of deflection. How many days will be spent debating whether this is true or not? I'm sure the MSN is gearing up.



posted on Jan, 3 2020 @ 01:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: Boadicea
a reply to: timidgal


Double-talk in DC


LOL -- Oh how wrong Trump was about Obama and Iran! But to the greater point... If anything, I'd say Trump's 2012 era talk was more an indication that Trump thought there was good reason to open a can of whoopass on Iran, and that Obama would use that opportunity for his benefit. Much like Trump thought there was good reason after the embassy attack, and that's exactly what Trump did. Whether Trump factored public (voter) opinion into his decision we don't know. But my best guess is that the folks who would support retaliation were already Trump supporters and would have voted for him anyway. Those who don't support the retaliation were never going to vote for Trump anyway. Six of one and half a dozen of the other.


And does anyone know, just one person, what his long term foreign policy is pertaining to Iran? Foreign policy on anything?


In a nutshell, I'd say Trump's foreign policy is simply that we're not going to be the world's b*tch anymore. Whether we're talking economic trade, terrorists, etc. For now, much of that is un-doing everything that brought us to this point, and making (what he considers) better deals, establishing strong legal and military precedents, etc. So, in other words, someone attacks our embassy and Trump opens that can of whoopass. It's a simple concept. You don't have to agree or like it, but it's not rocket science.


And we are trusting this man to make unilateral military decisions without the consent of Congress?


Congress? Really? Because the same critters that created these problems are somehow now the solution??? Oh dear... Give me a minute to stop laughing...


We can have differing opinions and still speak respectfully to one another.



posted on Jan, 3 2020 @ 01:15 PM
link   


Funny timing, this recent attack on Iran. Really makes you wonder, given his previous comments about starting a war to win reelection, if that's not what's going on right now.


He bombed a General in Iraq and has had an issue with Iran since before he was even elected. He promised to withdraw from the Iran deal and install sanctions to stop the continuous funding of terrorism in the ME. This was the main guy in charge of the terrorism exported from Iran. So no, I don't believe this has anything to do with the upcoming election.




And does anyone know, just one person, what his long term foreign policy is pertaining to Iran? Foreign policy on anything? From what I've seen over the last three years, his lack of understanding foreign policy, and the potential consequences thereof, is just crazy and SO dangerous. And we are trusting this man to make unilateral military decisions without the consent of Congress?


Yes, prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon hence the reason for the withdraw from the Iran deal and installing maximum pressure using sanctions to try and come up with another deal. The deal Obama made was never approved by Congress, so Obama screwed the pooch on this one, but it seems like Trump is doing what he can while trying to prevent an all-out war with Iran.




There's no question that Gen. Qassem Soleimani had American blood on his hands, but such a blatant disregard of proper protocol, which provides for checks and balances, is unacceptable in this situation.


That blatant disregard you talk about is the procedure Obama setup for bombing terrorists. Now, I'm totally against war and want all our troops to come back home as can be proven in my past posts. But one thing I will support is getting rid of people like Gen. Qassem Soleimani.



posted on Jan, 3 2020 @ 01:15 PM
link   
Excuse my misinformed ass but is the war in Iraq technically over? I know there is the advisory and patrolling roll, but does that mean the war there is over?



posted on Jan, 3 2020 @ 01:19 PM
link   
a reply to: timidgal

And this is just a distraction from impeachment.
Everybody knows exactly what this is.

He knows what he is talking about in this instance doesn't he?

Oh and foreign policy is a spin the bottle affair. Round and round and round she goes where she stops nobody knows.



posted on Jan, 3 2020 @ 01:21 PM
link   
a reply to: Nickn3




I don’t think starting a war will be necessary for him to get re elected.


No a miracle would be.



posted on Jan, 3 2020 @ 01:21 PM
link   
a reply to: Sillyolme

Trump was never impeached because the articles haven't been sent to the Senate.



posted on Jan, 3 2020 @ 01:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: Mach2

originally posted by: timidgal

originally posted by: pavil
a reply to: timidgal

There's no question that Gen. Qassem Soleimani had American blood on his hands, but such a blatant disregard of proper protocol, which provides for checks and balances, is unacceptable in this situation. I'm so tired of the tit for tat that's been going on in D.C.


The first part of that sentence says everything that needs to be said.

Pray tell, what protocol and checks and balances were needed to take out probably the number one formentor of trouble in the middle east who killed and maimed numerous US and Coalition Forces in Iraq and Afghanistan with those made in Iran IEDs?

Are you saying the Democratic leadership would have opposed this operation? Can't wait till they actually say that and seal their political fates.


Are we a renegade country? I agree that he was a despicable individual, but that's not what this is about. It is about OUR government. Even out founders knew there had to be checks and balances.


Forget for the moment that it is Trump.

Do you seriously think a president should have his authority to initiate a quick military response handcuffed by endless partisan bickering, rhetorical diatribes, and treasonous leaking of congress?

Think about the ramifications.

It would render any countries leader completely impotent.


The Justice Dept. advised POTUS about this guy in April of 2019, nine months ago. Why wait until now? Please don't use the Embassy attack as justification. He was just as dangerous nine months ago as he is now.



posted on Jan, 3 2020 @ 01:22 PM
link   
a reply to: carewemust

That is not the opinion of the experts dear.

They say he has made the situation worse. As usual.

Are you really hoping for war? Have kids you're willing to sacrifice because I do not.



posted on Jan, 3 2020 @ 01:23 PM
link   
a reply to: timidgal

So, in your expert opinion, just exactly why do we have a president then? It seems that every single thing the president does lately is something that only Congress or bureaucrats can do.



posted on Jan, 3 2020 @ 01:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: carewemust

That is not the opinion of the experts dear.

They say he has made the situation worse. As usual.

Are you really hoping for war? Have kids you're willing to sacrifice because I do not.


Because ... Obama made the Middle East so much better and so much more stable in his tenure.



posted on Jan, 3 2020 @ 01:27 PM
link   
a reply to: Breakthestreak




“What can I do that will help get me re-elected”

Isn’t something that President Trump would need to be thinking about


Really? Because he started talking about it at his inauguration and has been talking about it ever since.

Plus the whole BIden thing is "what can I do to help me get re elected" .
He is cheating again.



new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join