Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin (R) weighed in on the situation in Syria, attacking President Barack Obama and saying he should “let Allah sort it out.”
Palin said it’s “bull” to compare Obama to President George W. Bush
“Our Nobel Peace Prize winning President needs to seek Congressional approval before taking us to war. It’s nonsense to argue that, ‘Well, Bush did it.’ Bull,” Palin said in a Facebook post Friday night. “President Bush received support from both Congress and a coalition of our allies for ‘his wars,’ ironically the same wars Obama says he vehemently opposed because of lack of proof of America’s vital interests being at stake.”
“As I said before, if we are dangerously uncertain of the outcome and are led into war by a Commander-in-chief who can’t recognize that this conflict is pitting Islamic extremists against an authoritarian regime with both sides shouting ‘Allah Akbar’ at each other, then let Allah sort it out,” Palin continued.
Palin has made the same argument about Syria before.
How frightening to think this woman might be in some position of power. What was the Republican Party thinking to put her in the #2 spot in 2008!
Palin obviously has not regard for human life if it isn’t American lives. Over 100,000 Syrians have been killed, many of them women and children. Over 1000 were killed in august by chemical weapons, specifically sarin. Regardless of how we feel about American involvement, the international situation should be treated seriously.
Palin also forgets to mention that bush got the support of Congress based on erroneous information. I really haven’t heard much out of the Bush did it too crowd.
I have always tried to combat making fun of other people’s religions, regardless of how wacko I think that religion might be. Sarah Palin needs to learn not to make fun of others, especially when it comes to religion. So where is this one woman wrecking crew headed? Is she going to hang around slinging raw meat to people naïve enough to buy her act?
Palin is laughing all the way to the bank. It sickens me that people fall for her schtick.
I think that, on this issue, Palin has a lot of people from both sides of the aisle with similar sentiments. First time in a long time that I have heard anti-war protesters at the gates of the White House.
Too bad she has to be demeaning in expressing her sentiments though. Thank goodness she wasn’t elected to higher office and can do no damage.
She is a really, really stupid excuse for a public servant. Even by today’s low standards, yeah she’s scary and the GOP shoiuld take note that they wanted to put this imbecile a heartbeat away from the Presidency.
Other than making money off of people, she really isn’t the sharpest knife in the drawer.
I agree with her that it’s bull to compare Obama to George W. I much prefer Obama.
She is such a dunce. I am glad she lost in 2008 and quit her governor job. Only idiots support her.
Nothing she said, though, is wrong.
This IS a case of bad people fighting it out on both sides. Her point is that our involvement would not be a good thing.
If the case is about the “humanitarian” problem of 100,000 dead…why haven’t we invaded North Korea? If its about the Sarin, a) we don’t know who used it b) the UN stated that the rebels may have used some in May and we said nothing c) why are the Sarin deaths more important than the previous 100K d) what exactly should the world do to treat this “seriously?” What did she say, that was not said by others, conservative and liberal alike, albeit in a more articulate way?
As for “collateral damage” which is what the innocents being killed are…… where are our anti-war protest rallies condemning the collateral damage from the drone strikes? How much collateral damage will occur from OUR strikes in Syria now that the Syrians have moved their weaponry?
Obama has stated that he has no goals in Syria. He’s doesn’t want to harm Assad enough to make him lose the war. He doesn’t want to hurt Assad to make him retaliate against …whomever. He doesn’t want to aid the terrorist rebels. He’s not going to destroy Assad’s chemical weapon capability.
So, what exactly is he going to do?
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323324904579044962264410266.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_MIDDLETopOpinion
In the PBS interview, Obama also stressed that the option before him was a minimal one. America will act, he said, “if, in fact, we can take limited, tailored approaches, not getting drawn into a long conflict, not a repetition of, you know, Iraq, which I know a lot of people are worried about.” Politico summed that up with the headline “Obama: Syria Won’t Be Iraq.”
Andy Borowitz, resident satirist at The New Yorker, summed it up with the headline “Obama Promises Syria Strike Will Have No Objective.” Here’s his pretend Obama quote: “Let me be clear. Our goal will not be to effect régime change, or alter the balance of power in Syria, or bring the civil war there to an end. We will simply do something random there for one or two days and then leave.”
And there’s this from an actual official:
One U.S. official who has been briefed on the options on Syria said he believed the White House would seek a level of intensity “just muscular enough not to get mocked” but not so devastating that it would prompt a response from Syrian allies Iran and Russia.
When the satire approaches reality….can we honestly say that the President is taking this seriously?
Drone strikes aren’t against the Geneva Convention agreement. What’s really the difference in a manned vs. unmanned plane?
I left a link from the Post. By chance did you happen to read it?
Do we all agree that using chemical weapons like Sarin gas is simply unacceptable? Do we agree that targeting civilians, ie women and children is simply unacceptable?
I think Obama wants to send a few Patriot missles Assad’s way as a specific warning to not use chemical weapons of mass destruction.
You can’t say its ok this one time. It should always be unacceptable to gas anyone. We learned that during WWI.
sarah who?
Sarah Big-Mouth
@Pat.Herve
That’s the most relevant comment in this thread. Palin is a private citizen with the same right to express her opinion as everyone else. I am much more concerned about politicians in power who would use military power for something less than a vital U.S. interest.
You would think she would have more pride than to make such a stupid remark. What’s even neater is I have the right to make fun of her stupid remarks whether she is a private citizen or a public servant.
The use of sarin gas or any other chemical weapon IS of vital US interest. Why wouldn’t it be? I had a cousin who was gased during WWI. Ever talked to anyone who has been gassed? Cousin Frank really didn’t like it a lot. He was one of the lucky ones. Someone recognized him and pulled him to safety.
Having been a possible target for gas….wearing MOPP gear for weeks at a time in Kuwait….
I understand. Syria is not a signatory to the Conventions.
But, again….show proof that Assad authorized it before attacking him. It might have been the rebels. Furthermore, if it IS such an atrocity, then the user must be destroyed to send a message. One does NOT “wound” a bear….especially one with access to chemical weapons.
One of our greatest fears is a terrorist attack with WMD. So…we “punish” Assad. Why shouldn’t he hand over some gas to Hezbollah then? Why shouldn’t he supply it to a terrorist group that wants to attack us? Where’s his motivation to keep control of it or not use it once the US does whatever it is that Obama decides is strong enough to “send a message.”
It’s against the law to take out heads of state.
Now who do you think is using Sarin gas? I think they have the proof.
Do you just want to tell Assad and the rest of the world that its ok to violate international law? I don’t give a rat’s ass if Syria is a signatory or not. Using sarin gas is a violation against humanity.
I suppose everyone who has taken part in the middle east wars could have possibly been gassed. Those poor blokes in WWI WERE gassed and many didn’t live to tell about it. Others had serous disabilities that lasted their entire lives.
I need to hear more. I can’t fall on the side of do nothing.
It’s good to know that, for all the millions Mrs. Palin has made portraying herself on television (although I think her performances are a distant third to Julianne Moore and Tina Fey), she has not lost the trailer park ambience that made her so remarkable in her debut on the national scene.
While I agree that Syria presents a particularly gnarly dilemma for the United States and its current leaders, and that some of the underlying sentiments from which she is riffing are serious ones, the “let Allah sort them out” is pure pandering to low elements in the US culture and she may or may not be minimally intelligent enough to know it.
Thank you Scout for saying what many of us were thinking. snicker. You hit a homerun out of the park with that comment.
Cargo, you argue your points very effectively. Much more effectively than Sarah Palin could or would.
I personally favor some type of punitive measure against Syria. And continuing presence in the region. Not necessarily boots on the ground, but involvement and an understanding on the parts of these nations that we can and will drop bombs on them.
The best hope for the area becoming something other than a cesspool of fanaticism is continued US involvement.
But I do think we should proceed carefully, and gain a solid understanding of what happened in regards to chemical weapons.
I don’t disagree with anything you have said. @Rick
We are speaking of a country the size of Washington State with about 3-4 times the population and a lot less rain.
No need for boots on the ground. Lots of reasons to end chemical warfare. Its a nasty habit and is against all the international treaties.
@Moon-howler
Chemical Warfare (CW) against U.S. or its allies = vital U.S. interest;
CW between enemies of the U.S. = tertiary interest at best.
While it is deplorable to see CW used on civilians, it is not worth U.S. blood and treasure. In previous wars in the Middle East, the U.S. did not get involved when CW was used. There should be no motivation to set a new precedent. Given the clear enmity of both parties toward the U.S., politicians should be very cautious before putting the military in harm’s way over this.
I strongly disagree. Any time international laws are violated with regards to weapons use, it is only a matter of time before it catches up with us.
I would far rather slap them down now than wait until some hot head gets his grubby hands on chemical weapons, germs, or a dirty bomb and tries to use it on us or our allies.
You just can’t pull a Neville Chamberlain and ignore bad behavior like this. Today 1000, tomorrow how many? What are those little bastards doing with sarin gas in the first place?
Even if Assad didn’t use it (and I am betting he did) he must have had it and didn’t secure it. There should be a little punishment there also.
I would take out a few munition factories and nail a few armories. Maybe that would get someone’s attention.
Just out of curiosity, how would you handle germ weapons? dirty bombs? Should we be involved then? Were you this opposed to us going in to Iraq with boots on the ground over imaginary weapons of mass destruction?
This makes me laugh out loud. You all criticize Palin for “demeaning” remarks on this issue and then turn around and throw a pile of ad hominem turds at her. No HR from me, Scout. That “trailer park ambience” comment was downright elitist and sh*tty — excuse my trailer park language.
Wolverine,she is a public figure. Fair game. She needs to act better if she doesn’t want to be criticized.
So, what do we do if its the rebels that used gas? They have it too. Join in on Assad’s team?
“Even if Assad didn’t use it (and I am betting he did) he must have had it and didn’t secure it.”
It’s a war zone. People kill others and take it.
Or it was given to the rebels. Or they made it.
Where did he get it? Could be he got it from Russia, Iraq, or made it.
@Rick Bentley
If only there was a nation nearby that could have been used as a base……..
Well, it looks like the Syrian military DID do it, according to the Brits. And there are reports that the US knew it was coming.
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/425981/Senior-Syrian-military-chiefs-tell-captain-fire-chemicals-or-be-shot
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/us_knew_beforehand_but_didn_alert_zIxJnsl6LM1z7zZmPwFx4N
So…what to do…what to do….
Give them a few “Patriot salutes?”
Military breaks international rules? Who were the generals? Charge them with war crimes also…after they get ‘saluted.’
I think that right now may be the time for all of us on both sides of the issue to stop yelling at the President. None of us has the information he has about the situation, and yelling at him about principles without information doesn’t help him. In my opinion, this is one Hell of a difficult mess to sort out. I was very close to two very dicey international incidents, the takeover of our embassy in Tehran in 1979 and the hostage taking in Beirut in the 1980’s; and I see this one in Syria as being on a par for complexity and potential bad outcomes for any decision taken by POTUS. Let him figure this out with his advisors and let him negotiate the final deal with Congress. And ignore all the crap about his showing weakness or whatever. Bullshit on that. This isn’t something you decide cavalierly over beer and snacks, especially given how much military action we have been in for over a decade. Let the man do is job. This is the proverbial water’s edge. Criticism can come afterwards. Anyway, that’s how I see it.
I am going to agree with Wolverine.
There is much we don’t know.
I have been getting email from liberals and conservatives all yelling over it. I need some facts. I was thinking today how glad I am I am not the President. He is damned if he does and damned if he doesn’t as I see it.
Hahahaha ha. Leftists and establishment types get their undies in such a twist every time this woman opens her mouth.
Send her to the Pentagon and put her in charge of Psyops. She’s pretty good at aggravating America’s domestic enemies, let’s see what she can do to the foreign ones.
I think undies in a twist is an overstatement. I really don’t give a hoot what she says. She is filler. If you had a blog, you would understand.
It’s Palin or Miley Cyrus. I chose Palin.
There is also the point that your party hasn’t been making very good choices lately. I find it scary that she was a heartbeat away had McCain been elected.
Why do we have to wait for congress to come back? Agree none of us have the information about the situation but doesn’t it merit a faster congressional review?
I think they should be called back.
Palin bailed as Governor on the 4th of July for Pete’s sake – to further Sarah, Inc. Can’t get more patriotic or selfless than that.
I don’t see Obama as being weak here. I perceive a man that stupidly drew a line in the sand before facts were known. I also see, if the reports are true about the kind of attack, as in “enough to not be mocked,” someone that doesn’t have the confidence of his principles.
I do like that the waited for Congress. I don’t think we need to get involved. Yes, gas is bad. So is the death of the other 100,000 people. The Geneva accords were written so that the signatories would not have to develop defenses against gas. It was too horrific and hard to use. Churchill threatened to use if against any Nazi invasion force. Saddam used it against his own people and the Iranians. The Syrian rebels may have used it, according to the UN. The Soviets used chemical warfare against the Afghans. Who knows what the North Koreans have done?
So……now that we know…..what will launching a few missiles do? He’s already moved the assets. He can always make more. And if he succeeds in fighting back? One ship damaged or sunk?
The Syrians have the SSN-26 Sunburn missile, a top of the line, supersonic, anti-ship missile, with a suspected range of 500 km.
They have two diesel Romeo class subs…..status unknown.
They have other anti-ship capabilities. And their air defense network is not shabby.
So, we launch enough missiles to have a show of force…..then what? We are not prepared to destroy his military nor invade.
And when Rumsfield stated that we might do so with the 4th ID, when it was being shot at in Northern Iraq, from across the border, he was ridiculed. We had our chance.
So may I assume that you also find it scary that Biden is vice? Or is mild retardation not an automatic disqualifier?
Not at all. Joe Biden is not scary to me. He has been a senator for decades. Retardation? Hardly. He has forgotten more than Palin has ever learned about running the county.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/01/obama-strike-syria-congress-kerry
The Obama administration indicated on Sunday that it would launch strikes against Syria even in the face of rejection by the US Congress, less than a day after vowing to put an attack to a congressional vote.
Kerry also suggested that Obama will not limit US involvement in Syria’s civil war to cruise missile strikes provoked by the use of chemical weapons. The administration “may even be able to provide greater support to the opposition”, he said. Obama began providing weapons to Syrian rebels after determining earlier this year that Assad had carried out a smaller-scale chemical attack. (The UN stated that the previous gas attack could have been done by the rebels. And this is proof that Obama armed Al Quada backed rebels without Congressional input or support. – Cargosquid)
President Obama “has the right to do this no matter what Congress does”, said secretary of state John Kerry, one of the leading advocates of a military assault on dictator Bashar al-Assad for allegedly using chemical weapons on 12 neighborhoods outside Damascus on 21 August.
http://senseofevents.blogspot.com/2013/08/is-obama-setting-up-two-prong.html
Update, 0710 CDT Sept. 1: David Gregory just said on NBC News morning newscast that Obama has made up his mind to attack Syria and that he will order it no matter what Congress votes. (THIS could cause a constitutional crisis and military crisis. Read the link to see why. Basically, this puts officers in a bind. Do they follow the orders or the Constitution? And if he does fire…why is he ignoring the statements from other countries about escalation?)
Constitutional crisis? I guess then we have had a lot of those. Every president I can think of has ordered military strikes without bringing Congress into the equation.
I believe chain of command supersedes a general’s interpretation of the Constitution. PUH-leez.
@Wolverine
Normally I agree with much of what you say, but this time I call BS. The time to debate this issue is BEFORE any ops begin, not after. After the botched SOFA agreement in Iraq, the plan to arbitrarily pullout of Afghanistan in 2014, U.S. support of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, and the Benghazi debacle, this Administation does not inspire confidence that it is capable of sorting out this mess.
The primary U.S. interest here is to avoid getting involved in a nasty civil war. I do not need to remind you of the potential for disaster in Mideast civil wars (i.e. Beirut in 1983). We both know that air strikes/missile strikes by themselves cannot do much strategically, so there is always the worry about escalation.
My view is that this debate from both sides is quite healthy.
@Moon-howler
Our response to WMD should depend on the specifics of the situation. We should not have a blanket policy of responding militarily to any and all WMD attacks. The leaders of a rogue country can be indicted in abstentia and/or economic sanctions applied if no good military options exist or no other U.S. interests are involved.
Where would you draw the line Kelly? Would you order a military strike if there were germ weapons involved? Nuclear weapons being used?
I am not sure how I feel because I don’t know all the facts yet but I sure wouldn’t rule out a strike over gassing a civilian population.
How about the gassing of civilians during WWII? Would you have not felt a military strike was appropriate then?
It seems we are going through a real neo-con period of isolationism from the very people who brought us Iraq.
I would like to be certain the Assad regime used sarin gas. You know, fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me.
I have read the intel summaries made available about the chemical weapons attack and I believe them to be accurate. Nevertheless, I hope congress votes against the resolution. War is not the answer.
@Moon-howler
We have not had a situation where Congress votes and does not authorize force or forbids force..and the President goes ahead anyway.
“I believe chain of command supersedes a general’s interpretation of the Constitution.”
Actually, legally, it doesn’t. An officer is duty bound to NOT follow illegal orders and the officer’s oath says nothing about obeying orders – only defending the Constitution.
“I, (state your name), having been appointed a (rank) in the United States (branch of service), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foriegn and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the office upon which I am about to enter. So help me God.”
So, if Congress…the entity authorized by the Constitution to declare war votes No….. and the President issues orders to go ahead anyway…… Constitutional and military crisis.
I am well aware that those in the military are not obliged to follow orders they know to be illegal.
However, this isn’t such a case. It sounds like a good way to get a one way trip to Leavenworth actually.
The last time Congress declared war was WWII. This is such a stretch and the implication is making me seriously angry.
The thought that anyone in the military would refuse orders for a strike in Syria or anywhere else because they took it upon themselves to interpret the Constitution is absurd. Why even have a chain of command.
Wolve : I was particularly referring to her “Let Allah sort them out comment,” while acknowledging that the underlying issues were complex. She said that for effect with a particular demographic. My short-hand description of that demographic may have been a bit unfair to people who live in trailer-parks, but it is a perfectly accurate descriptor. She is playing for effect in a certain down market. the problem with that is that she is often associated with my political party, and I resist the misimpression that generates.
@Moon-howler
My point is that if Congress votes against force…. who is in charge? The Constitution says that Congress is in charge. The oath supports the Constitution. Nowhere is there an oath to obey anyone or show loyalty to anyone. ONLY the Constitution.
As for the orders…that is the responsibility of every officer. They must take responsibility. They cannot state that they were only following orders. If they refuse, they will be charged and replaced. Each officer must decide for themselves. Politicians forget that American officers are not robots.
Not all force is a declaration of war as evidenced by Korea, Vietnam, Bay of Pigs, Grenada, Somolia, Gulf, Iraq, ……….
It sounds to me like you are on a real witch hunt.
Obama isn’t asking congress to declare war.
Moon, Why don’t we ask Moe?
Why don’t we ask Moe what?
Yeah, like how to tie his shoes and spell his own name.
Anyone who knocks Palin for bein stupid yet doesn’t have a problem with Joe has a serious cognitive dissonance problem. The stuff my dog leaves in the yard is more intelligent than Biden.
Cato, how would you possibly be in the position to assess the difference in Biden and Palin? Palin has held office 2 years. Biden has held elected office for over 4 decades. Why am I guessing you didn’t follow his entire political career?
As for coming here to insult me, probably not a very cognitive idea on your part either.
Who is Biden?
Sorry, Kelly, but, in 1979 and in the 1980’s, I was in a position to know acutely what was going on and to open my mouth to give a fact-based opinion. On this one, however, I don’t know all the intelligence, nor do I know all the options as I once did. My “yelling” advice at the President in this case would be of no use to him. And too often these days that kind of thing turns into uninformed hostility when what is needed is collective, non-partisan thinking between the Oval Office and the Hill.
We do agree on many things. I will yell like Hell about assigning true responsibility for the likes of Benghazi so we can make the necessary adjustments to prevent such things in the future; but here I don’t have the ammo to fire advice at POTUS. I know first hand what it is like to have the information the public does not have in a crisis and be unable to explain things to them without putting sources and methods at dire risk. Sometimes we just have to have some trust in those to whom the people have given the job. But that’s me. You have the right to handle it in your own way.
Just remember, Scout, that your “certain down market” includes the people who grow your food, raise your meat, catch your fish, make things, fix things, patrol your streets and highways, and perform all sorts of services. My immigrant grandfather lived the last part of his widower life in a house trailer and was a firm Republican. He also spent part of his working life as a lumberjack in the great North Woods, where the boys apparently spent half their time cutting down trees and the other half pounding each other with their fists. I kind of think the old fellow would have taken to Mama Bear Sarah. But, regardless, if you ever told him he was a “down market,” well…………
BTW, news from the down market. The corn and soybeans are looking good so far. Soil was so wet a couple of weeks ago that they couldn’t get the truck all the way to the corn without getting stuck in the mud. Darn fertilizer cost an arm and a leg. In the meantime, hunting season isn’t too far off, I suspect. The boys are probably getting their equipment ready. Lots of deer and turkeys this year.
I think that there is a difference in living in a trailer and being trailer trash. Its an expression. “Trailer trash” doesn’t even have to live in a trailer. Sort of like Poor White Trash doesn’t have to really be poor or white…
Sarah’s problem is, she has a lot to learn, was told she had a lot to learn, and she hasn’t. She never discusses policy, she just makes smart ass remarks and calls attention to herself over things she probably shouldn’t.
My grandmother would have probably thought she was trash.
Our grandparents would have been entitled to their opinions or what we are guessing their opinions would have been. My father would have probably thought she was cute.
I come fr0m similar origins, Wolve. Grandfather on my mother’s side was a blacksmith, grandfather on my father’s side a farmer. My dad was the first farm boy in our family to go to college. None of us (if I may presume for those who are long dead and whom I didn’t know face-to-face) was as ignorant as Sarah Palin’s intended audience. People with pretensions to political leadership have an obligation to bring out the best in us, not the “let Allah sort them out” strain. I don’t accept your sterotype that if one works the soil or works with their hands that they have to be vulnerable to Mrs. Palin’s type of low entertainment. Again, it is to some extent harmless if it is confined to TV and not politics. I think that’s where Palin is now ensconced. The danger to the democratic process in a Republic of free men, however, is that there are people who might take her seriously.
“Vulnerable” to what, Scout? An opinion which differs from one’s own? You keep mentioning Palin’s reference to letting Allah sort it out in Syria. How does that differ in principle from opinions in this country before World War II, when FDR had to be very circumspect in his provision of any assistance to the UK because of the widespread sentiment against getting involved in another bloody European conflict? Was that opinion in 1939-1941 “down market”? Or was it just different than FDR’s? Why must we allow differences of opinion to devolve constantly into putdowns? How can one expect to recruit others to one’s own opinion after one has already described them openly as trailer park ambience or down market?
In my opinion, “trailer trash” is on a level with the “N” word.
The N word has a history of oppression based on attributes that one cannot change. “Trailer Trash” has limited history and is very much something that can be changed. How does Poor White Trash compare? (Or PWT if one wants to get prissy about it?) Trailer Trash is more a state of mind rather than a permanent condition from which there is no escape.
Palin has every opportunity to lift herself beyond the mentality she embraces. She choses not to.
As a blog owner who ultimately is responsible for what is said here, I think trailer trash is light years away from the N word. I have no problem with that term being applied to a public figure. She isn’t one of the sacred cows on this blog.
While I oppose military intervention in Syria, I have to draw the line when you start criticizing our troops for not refusing to follow orders, like the San Francisco hippes once did during Vietnam. We have to respect our troops, even if we disagree with policies that put them in harm’s way.
@Cargosquid
@Starryflights
I’m not criticizing anyone.
I’m stating that there MAY be a crisis depending upon what the politicians decide to do, based upon Constitutional authority and the responsibility and duty of officers based upon their oaths. If they follow the orders… fine. If they don’t….. they better be able to back it up. That’s the case for ALL orders, always. I won’t criticize them. THEY are the ones that are involved, whatever an officer decides to do.
My point is that politicians should not put them into such dilemmas.
I think your contrived constitutional crisis is just pure BS. Most military folks aren’t constitutional experts.
There is no institution in the world that is less open to exercising free will than the US military. You follow orders unless there is some egregious crime being committed. You can’t have every Tom, Dick and Harry evaluating every order based on his or her interpretation of the Constitution.
There is also the issue that Obama is not going to declare war.
I am dumbfounded by your relentless attempts to marginalize and drag down this president.
This is the most bogus of all.
@Moon-howler
Morris is a legal expert. Perhaps he can shed some light on who would be the one that officers should follow in case Congress votes NO and the President goes ahead anyway.
Very interesting discussion about the possible legal issues by better minds than mine
http://www.blackfive.net/main/2013/09/uphold-and-defend.html#comments
Read the whole thing including comments.
“I am dumbfounded by your relentless attempts to marginalize and drag down this president.”
I am dumbfounded by your reaction stating that I’m dragging down the president in this case. Nowhere did I marginalize and drag down this president. I did not even criticize him for either being too aggressive or not aggressive enough. If I did, quote me, and I’ll accept the lump.
The ONLY thing that I discussed was possible legal ramifications. Why the hostility? Notice, I’ve mentioned POLITICIANS putting us into this possible predicament.
And the flag officers DO have a responsibility to consider the constitutional ramifications. Of course, if they DO refuse orders, the way to do that is to resign their commissions while doing so. That is always an option. Enlisted do not have that option. Their oath is to obey the orders of the proper chain of command.
Also, we are speaking hypothetically. There has been no vote. If they do vote “no,” and the President goes anyway, its unprecedented.
You are right. The President is not going to declare war….HE CAN’T. But he can commit ACTS of war. Ever since Congress has continually and cowardly abrogated its war making responsibilities, the executive has taken more and more power. And that includes ALL of the Presidents since Lincoln.
And Lincoln didn’t? Dear God!
It shouldn’t dumbfound you. I said yesterday it was enraging and you were just stirring up something that didn’t exist…something to that effect.
Constitutional crisis my tail!
By cargo’s standards, those Navy seals who took down those Somali pirates a few years ago were violating the constitution since Congress never declared war on the pirates.
@Moon-howler
It does dumbfound me that you find it to be “enraging” when all I’m doing is discussing what OTHER people are bringing up; when all I’m doing is having a political discussion about what would happen IF Congress votes NO and then IF the President goes ahead anyway…which hasn’t happened in our history.
I used Lincoln as the stopping point because the interactions between Executive and Congress were so different prior to him.
@Starryflights
Actually, no. The Navy is under standing orders to deter piracy by US and international law.
Try again.
You know what….. forget it.
If Obama is perceived, in any way, to be possibly criticized, no rational discussion can be had here. Even when Obama is NOT being criticized.
No, he wasn’t being criticized directly but the legitimacy of what he was trying to do was being called into question. There was a great deal of projection that if he doesn’t get congressional approval and decided to go ahead with military strikes, then he would be causing a constitutional crisis. That is just so much BS.
I don’t care if others are talking about it. Let me just guess about those ‘others.’ It sounds to me like this entire plan is being swift-boated. That is exactly how it is hitting me.
Most of us want to find out more details. Our minds aren’t made up. We need more info. That kind of constitutional crisis crap just distracts us from finding out what’s really going on. Yes, I find it very disturbing.
Actually, I think Obama was an idiot to try to involve the do-nothing Congress. He also needed to send a strong message to our allies reminding them of a few things.
“If only there was a nation nearby that could have been used as a base……..”
Right. We don’t want to keep bases up because it makes these guys angry at us. Almost as angry as if they’d seen a woman running around without a veil on.
So every 10-20 years we end up mobilizing over there, sometimes to save Saudi Arabia’s bacon, without established bases.
Turkey, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates have all offered us base space.
Does the blogmeister then authorize the use of “ghetto trash” and “barrio trash”? Where I come from the people who lived in trailer parks or in trailers anywhere usually did so because of economics. Still do. There may be even more of them now in this economy. For them “moving on up” usually meant getting a used double-wide. And, yes, there were/are bad actors among them just like anywhere else. Ahem, not much different than certain areas along US 1 in PWC, no? PWC trailer trash?
I have friends who live in trailers. Excuse me, in a double wide. They aren’t trailer trash. Behavior makes one trash. Use whatever terms float your boat. I don’t know who lives along route 1. I rarely go over there any more. The trash that used to live there didn’t necessarily live in trailers.
I think we have explored this topic enough for now.
Perhaps we could stipulate that some excellent human beings live, full or part time, in trailers. I certainly know a few. My biggest concern about house trailers is that they seem, when gathered in clusters, to attract tornadoes.
At the risk of being disciplined by our host (based on her previous comment) I will also squeeze in one additional comment on Wolve’s concerns the phrase “Trailer trash”. I agree that it is a generalization that shouldn’t be applied loosely. It’s certainly not a term I would use (just as I would not use PWT in any of its forms). However, I don’t consider it on the same level of debasement as the “N word” (the latter having so abhorrent a history that it merits its being put on the shelf forever). One should not refer to people generally as “trash” without their having proven themselves to merit the term on an individual basis. I don’t set aside the possibility, however, that there are individuals out there who, by word or deed, could establish conclusively in my mind that referring to them as some form of “trash” would be accurate and appropriate. I have seen a few in my day. None around here and none recently, fortunately.
It’s just a state of being for some.
I am not too prissy about saying PWT. I grew up hearing it, in the elitist capital of Virginia. It was used generously when those saying it thought it was deserved.
I agree. It has to be proven first.