Kerry virtually outs Obama

Discussion in 'World Events' started by toughcoins, Oct 1, 2016.

  1. toughcoins

    toughcoins Well-Known Member

    John Kerry, without uttering exactly the right words, inasmuchas implicated Obama in micro-managing foreign policy yesterday.

    In 2013, in response to Assad's attacks on Syrian civilians with chemical weapons, Kerry wanted authorization to carry out attacks. Obama and Harry Reid arranged for a vote on a pandering, watered-down, closed-ended retaliation . . . limited to 60 days, and extendable to a maximum of 90 days of military support, with no ground troops. Being asked to put an end date on a mission of that type, Congress immediately indicated this was an ineffective and therefore unacceptable way to carry out the mission, so the vote was never brought to the floor.

    This short-sighted approach and resultant inaction has expanded the exodus of refugees from Syria, providing crowd cover to terrorists moving across international borders, and endangering the rest of the world.

    Obama should simply have requested authorization without limits on time or the discretion needed by our military leaders - the experts in that field - in the engagement of Assad's troops. Instead, we got inaction . . . and an increased terrorist threat.

    What other politically expedient decisions have been made at great peril to innocents, both abroad, and here in America?

    The release of unrepentant terrorists from Guantanamo, for one.
    Last edited: Oct 1, 2016
  2. IQless1

    IQless1 trump supporters are scum

    Obama is gay? No shit? Oh wait, you are a republican, that is something you republicans only do in private, when you think no one notices...
  3. IQless1

    IQless1 trump supporters are scum

    I didn't think COKC had it in him to be so sexual so soon after his lover doll found someone else.

    But enough about imaginary shit like COKC''s desires.

    Seriously, who gives a shit? Other retarded republicans?


    Fuck them and the horses they rode in on.
  4. IQless1

    IQless1 trump supporters are scum

    COKC is ugly. Even his mother hates him.
  5. L'Emmerdeur

    L'Emmerdeur Upright Member

    Are you incapable of providing a link to the statement by Kerry you're referring to?

    We've seen where open-ended authorizations for use of military force get the United States: Years of floundering around in places they don't have any particular reason to be.

    So what you're saying is that Congress refused to consider a limited engagement (true to the standard course of action for an openly obstructionist body), and as a result nothing was done. Yet you manage to blame the president. If Congress had authorized the action, it's very likely that events would have unfolded rather differently than they have, but we'll never know for sure, because as a result of Congress sitting with its thumb up its ass, nothing was done. Only a pathetically myopic partisan stooge would manage to ignore the part that the Congress played in stopping any direct military attempt to change the course of events in Syria.

    Can you provide any source for the implied claim that if the president had asked for an unlimited authorization, Congress would have given it? That seems rather unlikely to me, given the character of the Congress at that time and since, in which nearly every proposal put forth by President Obama has been strenuously opposed by shit-heel Republican zealots.
  6. toughcoins

    toughcoins Well-Known Member

    First off, D'IQless1 is a complete idiot . . . .

    Now, with that out of the way, I'll respond to the more rational post by L'Emmerdeur . . .

    No, I planned to, and forgot to do so when I neared the end of the post. Source follows:

    Giving an end date to wartime engagements is tantamount to telling a burglar when you'll be away from home. Telling the burglar you've left a dog to guard the house tells him to visit the butcher before he shows up.

    The contemplated engagement was Obama's hot potato, thrown to Congress to absolve himself of responsibility, by making sure any decision made was Congress' responsibility. Whether war was not declared on ISIS or, if it was, but failed for insufficient duration and ground support, Congress would own it, and Obama would not. Naturally, if war was declared, and we improbably manged a victory, it would naturally be Obama's victory. Truly, this was a well-veiled act of political cowardice, having drawn the red line, and then pushing two unacceptable options for Congress to choose from, purposely omitting a viable choice.

    Related material . . .

    Reference the above provided link.
  7. L'Emmerdeur

    L'Emmerdeur Upright Member

    Ah, so you did some intense reading between the lines, using your special THANKS OBAMA!™ bifocals, and found this hidden nugget, did you? This thread appears to be based on nothing more than that hidden nugget, and I think you should get your money back, because those specs are making you see things that aren't there. You're virtually outing yourself as delusional.

    Bullshit. If the mission has not been accomplished as the end date nears, then it would be up to Congress to vote an extension. If "the burglar" believes he only has to wait, he will be waiting a long time.

    It's the responsibility of Congress under the Constitution to authorize the use of military force. They reneged on their responsibility.

    That article makes it clear that the reasons for Congress diddling around rather than acting were a lot more complicated than your version of events would have us believe.

    The article does not support a claim that an unlimited authorization would have passed Congress. Rather the contrary. Various politicians are quoted giving their reasons for inaction, and the limited nature of the requested authorization is only a minor element in their reasoning.
  8. toughcoins

    toughcoins Well-Known Member

    BS to you . . . One of the conditions in the proposal was no more than one 30 day Congressional extension to the initial 60 day authorization . . . hardly a long time in that situation.

    Yeah, Obama trapped them, by providing them with only unacceptable options. Twit!

    That article comes from a left-leaning publication that did its best not to cast Obama in unfavorable light. Still left-leaning, but less-so, try this one on for size . . . . . .

    ". . . But the Senate Foreign Relations Committee rewrote it to bar ground combat and to expire after at most 90 days. Among those voting for that were Mr. Corker and Senator John McCain, the Arizona Republican who has been critical of the proposal Mr. Obama sent this week. Ultimately, Mr. Obama abandoned the attack in favor of a Russian-brokered deal in which Syria gave up chemical weapons.

    Republicans on Thursday said limits now were irresponsible. “His approach is one of the stupidest approaches I’ve ever seen,” said Senator Orrin G. Hatch, Republican of Utah. “Any president worth his salt would want the A.U.M.F. to be as broad as it can be.”

    Senator Marco Rubio of Florida, a possible Republican presidential candidate, said Congress would not pass Mr. Obama’s proposal. “We’re going to write our own legislation,” he said, “and I hope it’s a very simple one that’s going to say that we authorize the president to take whatever steps are necessary to defeat ISIS. Period.”

    Democrats wanted more limits, not fewer, and the party leadership was cautious. Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the Democratic leader, has made no comment on the president’s proposal. Representative Nancy Pelosi of California, Mr. Reid’s counterpart, told reporters that Mr. Obama was “on the right path” but that she was “not necessarily committed to the words in this draft.”

    Again, consider the source.
  9. L'Emmerdeur

    L'Emmerdeur Upright Member

    So the President sent a Syria AUMF draft with no time limit to the Congress before, but the Republicans in the Senate put a 90 day time limit on it. Then, when President Obama takes that into account and sends a time-limited AUMF draft, suddenly it's a bad thing. Your source just confirms what I said earlier about the obstructionist motivations of the Republican Congress.

Share This Page