Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.
Why don't congressional Republicans authorize action against ISIS?
2001400ex
Member Posts: 29,457
in Tug Tavern
https://www.yahoo.com/politics/why-congress-wont-vote-on-the-war-against-the-193503398.html
One senior Senate Democratic aide suggested that members are very aware of their history on AUMF votes, particularly those who continue to feel stung by being on the record as supporting the Iraq War before the nation as a whole came to consider that intervention a mistake. Given that, not everyone is eager to vote on an AUMF again.
“These votes are difficult and complex, and folks have a natural aversion to them. This one is particularly tricky because it’s next to impossible to find the sweet spot on the sliding scale between people who want a narrow, tailored specific mission and people who want open-ended, robust missions,” said the aide.
“No one has been able to figure out where there are 60 votes in the Senate. Nobody — not the administration, not Democrats, not Republicans, nobody — has put forward language that has the votes to pass,” the aide continued, noting that Republicans want presidents to have near unlimited power while Democrats oppose “mission creep and indefinite war.” Nothing about that partisan difference in outlook has changed in the days since the Paris attacks.
One senior Senate Democratic aide suggested that members are very aware of their history on AUMF votes, particularly those who continue to feel stung by being on the record as supporting the Iraq War before the nation as a whole came to consider that intervention a mistake. Given that, not everyone is eager to vote on an AUMF again.
“These votes are difficult and complex, and folks have a natural aversion to them. This one is particularly tricky because it’s next to impossible to find the sweet spot on the sliding scale between people who want a narrow, tailored specific mission and people who want open-ended, robust missions,” said the aide.
“No one has been able to figure out where there are 60 votes in the Senate. Nobody — not the administration, not Democrats, not Republicans, nobody — has put forward language that has the votes to pass,” the aide continued, noting that Republicans want presidents to have near unlimited power while Democrats oppose “mission creep and indefinite war.” Nothing about that partisan difference in outlook has changed in the days since the Paris attacks.
Comments
-
Obama is a pussy. Why hasn't he asked?
Blame and deflect. -
In the same article:RaceBannon said:Obama is a pussy. Why hasn't he asked?
Blame and deflect.
Obama sent Congress a draft AUMF early this year, and the White House has repeatedly signaled that it is open to “reasonable” alterations, including language that would make the new legislation the only source of presidential authority for taking on IS. It landed with a thud, and the president hasn’t shown much inclination to try to nudge it back to life.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2015/02/11/letter-president-authorization-use-united-states-armed-forces-connection -
Blame others for Obama failure #Script
I would vote against force with Obama making the rules of engagement. He's got more troops killed than W with his fucked up rules. -
Liberool post o' the day!
-
Wait what? Obama killed more troops???RaceBannon said:Blame others for Obama failure #Script
I would vote against force with Obama making the rules of engagement. He's got more troops killed than W with his fucked up rules.
Besides that.... Ok, you don't like Obama's plan. Republicans and internet tough guys like you scream about Obama not going to war. What about this. Where's the Republican plan??? Why don't they agree and put forth a bill to Obama? -
So you praise him when he's given the Nobel Peace prize and then you praise him when he's a War monger...sounds like you love ham sandwich.2001400ex said:
Wait what? Obama killed more troops???RaceBannon said:Blame others for Obama failure #Script
I would vote against force with Obama making the rules of engagement. He's got more troops killed than W with his fucked up rules.
Besides that.... Ok, you don't like Obama's plan. Republicans and internet tough guys like you scream about Obama not going to war. What about this. Where's the Republican plan??? Why don't they agree and put forth a bill to Obama? -
You clearly don't get it.Doogles said:
So you praise him when he's given the Nobel Peace prize and then you praise him when he's a War monger...sounds like you love ham sandwich.2001400ex said:
Wait what? Obama killed more troops???RaceBannon said:Blame others for Obama failure #Script
I would vote against force with Obama making the rules of engagement. He's got more troops killed than W with his fucked up rules.
Besides that.... Ok, you don't like Obama's plan. Republicans and internet tough guys like you scream about Obama not going to war. What about this. Where's the Republican plan??? Why don't they agree and put forth a bill to Obama? -
Got a link? I clearly said I do not want any military action with Obama as CIC. He is CIC you know.2001400ex said:
Wait what? Obama killed more troops???RaceBannon said:Blame others for Obama failure #Script
I would vote against force with Obama making the rules of engagement. He's got more troops killed than W with his fucked up rules.
Besides that.... Ok, you don't like Obama's plan. Republicans and internet tough guys like you scream about Obama not going to war. What about this. Where's the Republican plan??? Why don't they agree and put forth a bill to Obama?
I don't recall FDR waiting around for a bill to be proposed. He went to Congress and asked for a declaration. Same way W laid out his case and got Congress to approve.
It's called leadership.
And yes, far more American troops in Afghanistan have been killed under Obama's watch than under W. Take the dick out of your mouth and get educated.
Are we done here? -
Why can't Obama just drag us into a racist unfunded, unconstitutional war like BUSH!!!!???
-
Why do you hate Iraq? Are you really the gullible? Or you trying to wooosh me?RaceBannon said:
Got a link? I clearly said I do not want any military action with Obama as CIC. He is CIC you know.2001400ex said:
Wait what? Obama killed more troops???RaceBannon said:Blame others for Obama failure #Script
I would vote against force with Obama making the rules of engagement. He's got more troops killed than W with his fucked up rules.
Besides that.... Ok, you don't like Obama's plan. Republicans and internet tough guys like you scream about Obama not going to war. What about this. Where's the Republican plan??? Why don't they agree and put forth a bill to Obama?
I don't recall FDR waiting around for a bill to be proposed. He went to Congress and asked for a declaration. Same way W laid out his case and got Congress to approve.
It's called leadership.
And yes, far more American troops in Afghanistan have been killed under Obama's watch than under W. Take the dick out of your mouth and get educated.
Are we done here?
So let me get this straight. You call Obama a pussy for doing nothing and not going to war against ISIS. I show you the bill he sent to Congress asking for authorization and an article with quotes by Republicans on why they won't.
Now..... You just moved the goal posts and said you don't want action under Obama. But.... For arguments sake, here's exactly what Obama has done as president:
Over the past 16 months, Kaine said, the United States has carried nearly 6,300 airstrikes, at a cost of $5 billion, or $11 million per day, to push Islamic State out of sections of Iraq and Syria.
You appear very uneducated right now.
