Here is your chance to go on the record...

[JD Barleycorn]

According to news sources and the White House the US is on the verge of launching a military attack on Syrian forces. There has been no appeal to the people, or explanation, from the Oval Office. Secretary of Defense Hagel has said that the US will only attack with the support of our allies. What about Congress Mr. Secretary? Obama drew his red line last year and Assad crossed it....months ago. Now it appears (there is no solild evidence) that Assad has used chemical weapons on his own people again. You know like Hussein used chemical weapons on his people in the early 90s.

What do you think?

Iran has said that if the US goes after Syria then Israel will pay the price. Russia and China have warned about the fallout of military actions.

What do you think?

Some people like John McCain have said that if the US strikes then it should not be a pinprick to assauge Obama's ego but a game changer in the strategic balance. Other comments:

From the Boston Globe;

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/...ateQA/ObamaQA/

2. In what circumstances, if any, would the president have constitutional authority to bomb (Syria) without seeking a use-of-force authorization from Congress? (Specifically, what about the strategic bombing of suspected nuclear sites -- a situation that does not involve stopping an IMMINENT threat?)
The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.
As Commander-in-Chief, the President does have a duty to protect and defend the United States. In instances of self-defense, the President would be within his constitutional authority to act before advising Congress or seeking its consent. History has shown us time and again, however, that military action is most successful when it is authorized and supported by the Legislative branch. It is always preferable to have the informed consent of Congress prior to any military action.
As for the specific question about bombing suspected nuclear sites, I recently introduced S.J. Res. 23, which states in part that “any offensive military action taken by the United States against Iran must be explicitly authorized by Congress.” The recent NIE tells us that Iran in 2003 halted its effort to design a nuclear weapon. While this does not mean that Iran is no longer a threat to the United States or its allies, it does give us time to conduct aggressive and principled personal diplomacy aimed at preventing Iran from developing nuclear weapons.

This answer was given by Senator Barack Obama in 2007. Joe Biden echoed these sentiments in the same year.

What do you think?

I know some of you will not want to answer or more likely deflect by wanting to say Bush, Bush, Bush but that is not the question. This is here and now. Your leader, his words on the topic, and your condemations.

What do you think?

[thisguy23]

McCain needs to find a rocking chair somewhere in the country and enjoy his retirement.
We need to pull our troops out of the middle east and let them do what they may. I don't really care about the people who were dancing in the streets after 9-11.

[cptjohnstone]

I say the gutless wonder we have in the White House will do nothing, they crossed that red line 3 months ago

[i'va biggen]

Doesn't matter which way he goes the right will whine and piss their panties.

[satexasguy]

Originally Posted by i'va biggen

Doesn't matter which way he goes the right will whine and piss their panties.

And if he does send in the troops, will the liberals stop drinking his koolaid? They should since he will be no different than Bush.

Hey HEADUPYOURASS, I guess the sky is starting to fall now. I posted earlier that Obama will end up giving back his Nobel Peace Prize and you snicked at that. So tell me, how will OBama sending US troops to another war zone sit with the liberals?

[Jewish Lawyer]

He (President Obama) meant to say, "The President may not, unless it is me, etc......"

[Submodo]

Whatever Israel wants the U.S. to do, the U.S. will do.

The rest is just parlor games.

[Jdriller]

we do not need to get into another war in the middle east. yes it is a shame and horrible that Syria would use chemical weapons on its own people, or for that matter on any people. But we are not the worlds enforcer of UN rules, Geneva rules. Anything we do will cause hatred and blow back if we sent missiles into Syria. And what for. We shoot some missiles, some bad guys and some civilians, and children die. We flexed our awsome muscles and taught them they can't fuck with us and the civil war goes on anyway. Neither side is pro America. Its like steeping in and breaking up a fight, only to have both fighters turn against you and try to kick your ass for interfering with their fight, their business. Let the rest of the world worry about it, like Europe, or Russia or some of the "Stan" countries. We don't need to violate the constitution with unilateral military action against a country that shows no imminent threat to us, without congressional approval. We have enough problems at home without adding that problem to our plate.

[JD Barleycorn]

Eva you may be right but here is your chance to stand out from the liberal crowd. To show us that you are your own man. That you march to the beat of a different drummer. Don't let us or yourself down. After anything happens we'll take care of ourselves. The biggest problem is what Obama should have done, should have been done six months ago but that time is past.

[i'va biggen]

Originally Posted by satexasguy

And if he does send in the troops, will the liberals stop drinking his koolaid? They should since he will be no different than Bush.

Hey HEADUPYOURASS, I guess the sky is starting to fall now. I posted earlier that Obama will end up giving back his Nobel Peace Prize and you snicked at that. So tell me, how will OBama sending US troops to another war zone sit with the liberals?

Why not ask a liberal fucktard?

[gnadfly]

When Obama involved the US in Libya he said there was an immanent threat to human life in one particular region by the Khaddafi forces. He never gave specifics of that threat. The media gave him a pass. Then Obama thumbed his nose at the War Powers Act

When the Obama administration said that al-Assad had used chemical weapons against the Syrian people 3 months ago he wrung his hands. Then the Administration supposedly confirmed the "chain of custody" that he made a big speech about. Then Obama wrung his hands again.

Let the Muslims kill the Muslims. They are good at it. Syria doesn't have a direct strategic significance to the United States.

Barry is in over his head. He made another stupid promise that the media can't excuse away or blame the TEA party for.

Frack, baby, frack.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by Jdriller

we do not need to get into another war in the middle east. yes it is a shame and horrible that Syria would use chemical weapons on its own people, or for that matter on any people. But we are not the worlds enforcer of UN rules, Geneva rules. Anything we do will cause hatred and blow back if we sent missiles into Syria. And what for. We shoot some missiles, some bad guys and some civilians, and children die. We flexed our awsome muscles and taught them they can't fuck with us and the civil war goes on anyway. Neither side is pro America. Its like steeping in and breaking up a fight, only to have both fighters turn against you and try to kick your ass for interfering with their fight, their business. Let the rest of the world worry about it, like Europe, or Russia or some of the "Stan" countries. We don't need to violate the constitution with unilateral military action against a country that shows no imminent threat to us, without congressional approval. We have enough problems at home without adding that problem to our plate.

+1 Helping the rebels overthrow Assad will not further U.S. interests. Let them bleed each other dry.

[Jewish Lawyer]

JD, normally, your comments are very intelligent, timely, and useful. In this case, though, you have made an error of logic. Eva cannot be her own man!

[i'va biggen]

Iraq using chemicals bad.
Syria using them good.
JL go to Syria instead of Israel.

[WTF]

I love how JD wants everyone to go on the record but he is to chickenshit too.

I'm not for going into there btw. I do not give a shit how much gas he uses to kill his own people. We should be giving him free gas IMHO.