Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
Showing Original Post only (View all)I wish it weren't so, but this is blatant dishonesty on the part of the Administration [View all]
in order to get around the prohibition of launching a war (yes, lobbing missiles at another country absent an attack or plans of an attack on the U.S. or its territories is an act of war prohibited by the war powers act)
Here is the lie:
<snip>
In a sign that Obama believes he has the legal authority, independently of Congress, to launch a strike, Carney said that allowing the chemical weapons attack to go unanswered would be a "threat to the United States".
<snip>
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/27/syria-us-forces-ready-obama
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
108 replies, 13950 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (132)
ReplyReply to this post
108 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
I wish it weren't so, but this is blatant dishonesty on the part of the Administration [View all]
cali
Aug 2013
OP
Not likely since combatting CO2 emissions would pose an even greater threat
NorthCarolina
Aug 2013
#25
Blatant dishonesty and attempting to minimize the gulf between candidate Obama and President Obama's
suffragette
Aug 2013
#20
That is so true. Eg, I remember a reporter asking Obama what he thought about Humanitarian
sabrina 1
Aug 2013
#27
I'm beginning to think that may be the case. Nothing else explains the complete flip flops
sabrina 1
Aug 2013
#83
You had to go to the Guardian to find out about a press conference? But...
TreasonousBastard
Aug 2013
#32
And even Corker in the article didn't say that Obama has complied with the War Powers Act. n/t
totodeinhere
Aug 2013
#47
I stand corrected on that specific point but the rest of my argument remians valid.
totodeinhere
Aug 2013
#62
I would also add that Representative Kucinich thinks differently on this subject.
Laelth
Aug 2013
#40
I don't like Corker much, either, but Kucinich has no say in this whatever.
TreasonousBastard
Aug 2013
#59
Kucinich earned the right to 'have a say' in these matters by the fact that he was RIGHT
sabrina 1
Aug 2013
#68
Since when does the President 'notify' Congress before making a decision about
sabrina 1
Aug 2013
#41
I'm familiar with the War Powers Act. I haven't seen anything there that doesn't require
sabrina 1
Aug 2013
#63
Nope. What I want is to read the same daily classified intelligence briefings
underthematrix
Aug 2013
#95
Yup, that so-called "threat to the United States" is no more a real threat
totodeinhere
Aug 2013
#49
The REAL "threat to the United States" IS COMING FROM WITHIN, not from some other country. N/T
L0oniX
Aug 2013
#65
This administration is the grift that keeps on giving. Pure Bush-era legal circumlocution. nt
Poll_Blind
Aug 2013
#94
Deja vu all over again. Bush et al and Iraq. Funny how history repeats itself...nt
Clear Blue Sky
Aug 2013
#102