If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Talking Points Memo)   As the Congress mulls Syria, a new scenario is proposed by a GOP Representative: Congress votes down the attack, Obama does it anyway, and then the House GOP impeaches   (livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com) divider line 181
    More: Followup, President Obama, GOP, congresses, Duncan Hunter  
•       •       •

2459 clicks; posted to Politics » on 05 Sep 2013 at 4:36 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



181 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-09-05 02:54:36 PM  
I'm not even sure that would be totally unjustified.
 
2013-09-05 02:58:40 PM  
So...what happens if obama doesn't "do it anyway"?
 
2013-09-05 02:59:01 PM  
That worthless POS carpetbagger McClintock is all for this one, too

/keep stroking your little dicks, little dicks
 
2013-09-05 03:03:43 PM  
They really do shiat themselves of what they think Obama is going to do, don't they?
 
2013-09-05 03:08:03 PM  

Ambivalence: So...what happens if obama doesn't "do it anyway"?


Then the GOP goes back to demanding immediate military action.
 
2013-09-05 03:09:00 PM  

Blues_X: Ambivalence: So...what happens if obama doesn't "do it anyway"?

Then the GOP goes back to demanding immediate military action.


Or else they vote to defund Obamacare. Again.
 
2013-09-05 03:28:32 PM  

Nadie_AZ: Blues_X: Ambivalence: So...what happens if obama doesn't "do it anyway"?

Then the GOP goes back to demanding immediate military action.

Or else they vote to defund Obamacare. Again.


Why not both?
 
2013-09-05 03:29:49 PM  
Can you imagine what would have happened to a Democrat suggesting something like this in the Bush years?  He or she would have been run out on a rail for being a terrorist/communist/traitor/threat to our freedoms.
 
2013-09-05 04:25:50 PM  
i1.ytimg.com

Gore Vidal told me in With Honors that "the president can make war for 90 days without consulting Congress."
 
2013-09-05 04:29:24 PM  

Chariset: Can you imagine what would have happened to a Democrat suggesting something like this in the Bush years?  He or she would have been run out on a rail for being a terrorist/communist/traitor/threat to our freedoms.


Thank heavens those days are behind us.
 
2013-09-05 04:34:49 PM  
I see a little problem with this fiendish plan... It doesn't say anywhere in there that the President got a BJ from a chubby intern. Anyone who has been paying attention for the last 60 years should know we don't impeach over needless wars. Not our style
 
2013-09-05 04:37:59 PM  
The War Powers Act begs to differ.
 
2013-09-05 04:41:22 PM  

DamnYankees: I'm not even sure that would be totally unjustified.


I, for one, would like the Supreme Court to determine if the WPR is constitutional.
 
2013-09-05 04:42:07 PM  

vygramul: DamnYankees: I'm not even sure that would be totally unjustified.

I, for one, would like the Supreme Court to determine if the WPR is constitutional.


Who would have standing to sue?
 
2013-09-05 04:43:08 PM  

Ambivalence: So...what happens if obama doesn't "do it anyway"?


Please don't inject possibilities outside the realm of what he could conceivably fap to...
 
2013-09-05 04:43:20 PM  
Granted, my understanding is that Obama would be covered by the War Powers Act.

This said, I remember from the Bush years that any law or international standard could be overruled by the President's lawyer calling it "quaint" or some such thing.
 
2013-09-05 04:44:03 PM  
The Presidnet better be careful.  Dean Boehner placed him on "double-secret probabtion" last year
 
2013-09-05 04:44:32 PM  
Just when you think they couldn't stoop any lower.
 
2013-09-05 04:45:27 PM  

WTF Indeed: The War Powers Act begs to differ.


To be fair, it's a damned stupid act, that directly contradicts the constitution.  But the supreme court has never heard a challenge on it.
 
2013-09-05 04:45:40 PM  
Didn't Obama already bomb Libya without Congress' approval?
 
2013-09-05 04:46:02 PM  
While I don't think congress disallowing action on Syria is a bad thing, necessarily, this has got to be the pettiest bullshiat reason anyone could have come up with to justify that result.
 
2013-09-05 04:47:09 PM  
Or vote against authorization and blame Obama for inaction and failure to lead. Either way, the GOP, and therefore America, wins.
 
2013-09-05 04:47:17 PM  

Chariset: Can you imagine what would have happened to a Democrat suggesting something like this in the Bush years?  He or she would have been run out on a rail for being a terrorist/communist/traitor/threat to our freedoms.


Don't pretend that at the time the Democrats were anything but eager to sign off on the Patriot act and Iraq. All the Congressmen who complain about Bush's warmongering never seemed to have any problem voting yes on everything he wanted.

At least the House is opposing an attack on Syria now even if their only reason is that Obama suggested it.
 
2013-09-05 04:47:22 PM  
pjmedia.com

I'm sure yet another impeachment of a Democratic President, by a Republican Congress, for a stupid reason, with no chance of conviction in the Senate, will go over really big with swing voters.
 
2013-09-05 04:47:46 PM  
More likely scenario:

House votes down the grant of powers, Obama says okay, this is a democracy and does not attack. Syria uses chemical weapons again and Obama says "Hey GOP, told you so, not going to allow this to happen again" and attacks. GOP loses the midterms big times.
 
2013-09-05 04:48:31 PM  

Serious Black: vygramul: DamnYankees: I'm not even sure that would be totally unjustified.

I, for one, would like the Supreme Court to determine if the WPR is constitutional.

Who would have standing to sue?


The President.
 
2013-09-05 04:48:49 PM  

vernonFL: Didn't Obama already bomb Libya without Congress' approval?


Just our own embassy in Benghazi. But you libs wouldn't hear about that in the liberal MSM media.
 
2013-09-05 04:49:07 PM  

Zasteva: House votes down the grant of powers, Obama says okay, this is a democracy and does not attack. Syria uses chemical weapons again and Obama says "Hey GOP, told you so, not going to allow this to happen again" and attacks. GOP loses the midterms big times.


I think you're massively overestimating how much US voters give a shiat about this. They don't care if Syrians are gassed.
 
2013-09-05 04:49:34 PM  
They can impeach all they want, it will just be to satisfy their need to stick it to the blah man.  Unless something truly terrible turns up, it will likely go no where, but the teatards will get the media circus they want which is all that matters, especially since their first principal goal of making Obama a one term President was thwarted in ways they still don't  understand.
 
2013-09-05 04:50:25 PM  

Ambivalence: So...what happens if obama doesn't "do it anyway"?


Impeach him for being a total tease.
 
2013-09-05 04:50:30 PM  

Serious Black: vygramul: DamnYankees: I'm not even sure that would be totally unjustified.

I, for one, would like the Supreme Court to determine if the WPR is constitutional.

Who would have standing to sue?


I don't know if it would be convincing, but you could argue that the tax-paying citizens can claim a misappropriation of funds set aside by Congress, since the budget didn't contain a line for "Bomb the shiat out of another Middle East country".

If WPA was ruled unconstitutional, though, the President would just have to stop doing stuff, I don't think they can find him guilty for doing it when it was the law.  Not that they actually need anything to impeach, it just lends it more validity than "well, he's a blah person" or even "well, he doesn't do everything I want him to do" and "the man's wife gave my fat kid anorexia".

That said, I don't see WPA getting ruled unconstitutional across the board.  They might decide the day limit is too high, but the Commander in Chief of the US Armed Forces has to have a certain amount of leeway to react to quickly changing world scenarios without needing to wait for congressional approval.
 
2013-09-05 04:50:57 PM  
"I think he's breaking the law if he strikes without congressional approval," Hunter said. "And if he proceeds without Congress providing that authority, it should be considered an impeachable offense.

Yeah, because NO other President has ever done something like this. It's totally without precedent.
 
2013-09-05 04:51:12 PM  
Wowee that's Starscream level brilliant, especially what with him letting his "cunning plan" slip publicly. Yup I'm sure Obama wouldn't see an obvious "trap" like that and either find another way to move against Assad's chemical weapons or cover himself legally otherwise.
 
2013-09-05 04:51:21 PM  

DamnYankees: Zasteva: House votes down the grant of powers, Obama says okay, this is a democracy and does not attack. Syria uses chemical weapons again and Obama says "Hey GOP, told you so, not going to allow this to happen again" and attacks. GOP loses the midterms big times.

I think you're massively overestimating how much US voters give a shiat about this. They don't care if Syrians are gassed.


They care if nations take this as a sign that supplying terrorist groups with Sarin is acceptable for various proxy wars.
 
2013-09-05 04:51:52 PM  

Zasteva: More likely scenario:

House votes down the grant of powers, Obama says okay, this is a democracy and does not attack. Syria uses chemical weapons again and Obama says "Hey GOP, told you so, not going to allow this to happen again" and attacks. GOP loses the midterms big times.



MEGA UNLIKELY
 
2013-09-05 04:52:12 PM  

netweavr: They care if nations take this as a sign that supplying terrorist groups with Sarin is acceptable for various proxy wars.


No they don't.
 
2013-09-05 04:52:22 PM  

DamnYankees: Zasteva: House votes down the grant of powers, Obama says okay, this is a democracy and does not attack. Syria uses chemical weapons again and Obama says "Hey GOP, told you so, not going to allow this to happen again" and attacks. GOP loses the midterms big times.

I think you're massively overestimating how much US voters give a shiat about this. They don't care if Syrians are gassed.


Yeah I seriously don't see it as an issue. Let them gas each other. Heck send them some beans and chili and let them have at it. Seriously not worth us paying to do jack about it. Let France, Germany, China, or any other country with a military who gives a damn fund this one in cash and personnel.
 
2013-09-05 04:53:22 PM  

Serious Black: vygramul: DamnYankees: I'm not even sure that would be totally unjustified.

I, for one, would like the Supreme Court to determine if the WPR is constitutional.

Who would have standing to sue?


Maybe Congress? Guessing, I honestly don't know
 
2013-09-05 04:53:37 PM  

DamnYankees: netweavr: They care if nations take this as a sign that supplying terrorist groups with Sarin is acceptable for various proxy wars.

No they don't.


I'm sure Sarin ending up in the hands of Drug Warlords in Central America won't impact the US population at all.
 
2013-09-05 04:54:02 PM  

wingnut396: They can impeach all they want, it will just be to satisfy their need to stick it to the blah man.



Playing the race card from the bottom of the deck, eh?
 
2013-09-05 04:54:37 PM  

netweavr: I'm sure Sarin ending up in the hands of Drug Warlords in Central America won't impact the US population at all.


If someone gasses Americans, then Americans will care. Until then they really dont.
 
2013-09-05 04:54:50 PM  

Chariset: Can you imagine what would have happened to a Democrat suggesting something like this in the Bush years?  He or she would have been run out on a rail for being a terrorist/communist/traitor/threat to our freedoms.


Exactly HOW is a US Congressman "run out on a rail"? Let me guess, you're from the alternate universe where stupid propaganda is actually true.

Anyway, under Bush the Lesser, the Democrats were happy to just bend over and spread every time he snapped his fingers. Then, afterwards, they could whine about laws they had voted for, since most Americans are as stupid as--well, as stupid as you.
 
2013-09-05 04:55:25 PM  

To The Escape Zeppelin!: Chariset: Can you imagine what would have happened to a Democrat suggesting something like this in the Bush years?  He or she would have been run out on a rail for being a terrorist/communist/traitor/threat to our freedoms.

Don't pretend that at the time the Democrats were anything but eager to sign off on the Patriot act and Iraq. All the Congressmen who complain about Bush's warmongering never seemed to have any problem voting yes on everything he wanted.


There were a number of Democrats who made it clear that the only reason they were doing this is Bush administrations assertions that there was a clear and present danger of Iraq being able to use weapons of mass destruction, particularly nuclear weapons, and that if it weren't for that they would be completely opposed to it. Kerry among them.

I can't find the original source for this, but this can get you started: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/choice2004/kerry/iraq.h t ml 


At least the House is opposing an attack on Syria now even if their only reason is that Obama suggested it.

I guess people doing the right thing for the wrong reasons is slightly preferable for them doing the wrong thing. Unfortunately it's not very repeatable.
 
2013-09-05 04:56:31 PM  

DamnYankees: Zasteva: House votes down the grant of powers, Obama says okay, this is a democracy and does not attack. Syria uses chemical weapons again and Obama says "Hey GOP, told you so, not going to allow this to happen again" and attacks. GOP loses the midterms big times.

I think you're massively overestimating how much US voters give a shiat about this. They don't care if Syrians are gassed.


While that is potentially true for some - there is also a contingent that doubts our ability to fix the situation with missiles.
 
2013-09-05 04:56:40 PM  
Totally irrelevant. Obama seems to want Congress to take him off the red-line hook.

I hope.
 
2013-09-05 04:56:45 PM  

DamnYankees: Zasteva: House votes down the grant of powers, Obama says okay, this is a democracy and does not attack. Syria uses chemical weapons again and Obama says "Hey GOP, told you so, not going to allow this to happen again" and attacks. GOP loses the midterms big times.

I think you're massively overestimating how much US voters give a shiat about this. They don't care if Syrians are gassed.


No, but they do rally around a President who takes us into conflict, especially if the conflict is short and victorious and done for "good" reasons.
 
2013-09-05 04:56:57 PM  

DamnYankees: netweavr: I'm sure Sarin ending up in the hands of Drug Warlords in Central America won't impact the US population at all.

If someone gasses Americans, then Americans will care. Until then they really dont.


I believe you're severely underestimating the power of American propaganda.
 
2013-09-05 04:58:20 PM  

Zasteva: No, but they do rally around a President who takes us into conflict, especially if the conflict is short and victorious and done for "good" reasons.


I don't think that's necessarily true. When was the last time the public massively disapproved of a military action beforehand, but then switched opinion once it happened?
 
2013-09-05 04:58:47 PM  

To The Escape Zeppelin!: Chariset: Can you imagine what would have happened to a Democrat suggesting something like this in the Bush years?  He or she would have been run out on a rail for being a terrorist/communist/traitor/threat to our freedoms.

Don't pretend that at the time the Democrats were anything but eager to sign off on the Patriot act and Iraq. All the Congressmen who complain about Bush's warmongering never seemed to have any problem voting yes on everything he wanted.


Of the 259 Democrats in Congress (House and Senate) at the time, only 111 voted in favor of the Iraq War Resolution (147 voted no and one didn't vote).  So, yes, the majority of Democrats in Congress were against it, no pretending needed.
 
2013-09-05 04:59:17 PM  

vygramul: DamnYankees: I'm not even sure that would be totally unjustified.

I, for one, would like the Supreme Court to determine if the WPR is constitutional.


If Congress can delegate specific powers to the Executive branch, could the reverse happen if precedent is established (like under the War Powers Act)? Could Congress pass a law and the President signs it saying that a specific type of judge can be nominated and approved without the Executive's consent? Could the Supreme Court declare that Presidential powers can be overruled in certain circumstances - like issuing pardons against someone convincted of conspiring against the national defense? It's a nasty can of worms to open, and I'd love to see the Court tackle the issue.
 
Displayed 50 of 181 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report