ANOTHER Iraq war? How about a vote in Congress?

Tom Jackson
Aug 12, 2014

 

Before going out of town for his latest vacation, President Barack Obama ordered air strikes in Iraq and told reporters that the U.S. military mission could go on "for months." In a nice bipartisan touch, the president has been carrying out the air attacks from the aircraft carrier George H.W. Bush. 

That sounds an awful lot like a new war. 

Article One of the U.S. Constitution, supposedly the supreme law of the land, says that Congress shall have the power "To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water .... "

So if we're going to have another war, and we can't be bothered to have a formal declaration of war, can we at least have a vote in Congress? Let's ask Sherrod Brown, Rob Portman, Marcy Kaptur, Jim Jordan and all of the other members of the Ohio delegation in Congress to declare publicly, in a yes or no vote, if they think yet another Iraq war is a good idea. 

 

Comments

sugar

The idiot ran on ending the Iraq war, now he has to put on his big boy pants and realizes what Bush and Cheney did. Even old hillahag is being promoted as hawkish.

coasterfan

I think everyone realizes what Cheney and his puppet Bush did. Cheney is on record in the mid-1990's saying how foolish it would be to enter Iraq. Then he became CEO of Halliburton ( which stood to make a gazillion $ when we invaded Iraq), and Voila, we invaded Iraq.

doglegright

And Obama was on record as a senator saying we shouldn't be in a war on Iraq. He then won the "Nobel Peace Prize" and voila... He invades Iraq now....He must stand to make a gazillion and must be in bed with Big Oil....

knowitall

He got the troops out. If Cheney, I mean Bush, had just left the no fly zone in place, then there would not have been over 4,000 US servicemen and women killed and many thousands more injured permanently. Cheney, I mean Bush, have that blood on their hands.

doglegright

He got the troops out alright. Now the country is devolving into a mess with ISIS running rampant all over the country threatening to setup a super Islamic state. Maybe we could have left a small peace keeping force there.... Whoops... We just left everything.

doglegright

Everything Obama touches gets ruined.

knowitall

Cheney, I mean Bush, should never have disturbed the status quo in Iraq. WMD...ya, right!! Saddam, like it or not, had control. Yes, the Cheney administration really frigged up that country. Don't expect Obama to continue that ridiculous policy. Keep ground troops out....bomb the hell out of ISIS.....arm the Kurds.

The Big Dog's back

What's really hypocritical is the right wingnuts were giving bush credit when Obama pulled the troops out of Iraq. Glad to see you put it on record that you were for the invasion of Iraq sugar. done again is still blaming the Dems.

Factitious

Exactly. We need stop the genocide and rally with bipartisan effort, but all wingnut Sugar sees is an opportunity for another petty attack on the President.

Really are you ...

Not too long ago there was an article on veteran benefits. Some thought that veterans didn't deserve benefits after serving their country. How it wasn't fair, what did they do. If every US citizen served in one of the branches of our armed forces there would be a deeper respect for what us veterans have done. At least in our passing we have earned a 21 gun salute and a United States flag to our closest loved one. But there are probably people who will complain about spending money on the 21 rounds and the cost of a United States flag.

The United States declaring war, puts boots on the ground again. This will be the third darn time we have fought with Iraq. Do not put boots on the ground. Pull out all US civilians, and bomb the people of Iraq back into the stone age. Can't do that? Right! When a person enters the US armed forces, you are sworn in even before you leave MEPS. And you swear "to protect the United States from all enemies, foreign and domestic." there is no swearing saying, "I will protect all foreign people from themselves." But the Commander In Chief...

What I would do? The United States is closing business. Pull our military away from hot zones, possible conflicts. Still be a part of The United Nations and The North Atlantic Treaty Organization, but be more of an advisor instead of going solo. But if we were to bomb the heck out of and level Iraq, Haliburton can send the stockpile of plastic coffins they have over to Iraq.

just observing

I am not an Obama fan, but clearly Mr. Jackson you did not research this very well. Under the War Powers Act of 1973 the president can use the military in a limited fashion for 60 day and up to 90 days with out a congressional vote and with only consulting the congressional leadership. These airstrikes for 60-90 days are within the presidential authority and his position as commander and chief.

The Big Dog's back

Research and Tom don't belong in the same sentence.

Factitious

You're arguing against something Jackson did not say. He didn't say that where the President is going is illegal. He simply proposes Congress goes on record with a vote. I like it. In principle, that's great. It's also unlikely.

Donegan

The dems voted for it the first time around i am sure they would do so again for their god if he asked them for it. Its either that or the Democrat party would turn racist over night.

The Big Dog's back

The Dems vote for it? 126 Dems voted against it compared to 6 Repubs in the House. 21 Dems in the Senate voted against it compared to 1 Repub. You right wingnuts own the Iraq war no matter how you try to spin it. Time to put an end to the bullspit spread.

Maggdi

Do you also remember that there two votes. And the second one was demanded by those who voted against it the first time. Maybe they were afraid they'd missed the boat or they would be able to play both sides.

The Big Dog's back

I gave the final vote magpie. What else do you want?

Donegan

strange how you are all for it now? Hypocrite do that though so you are setting a good example of what one looks like.

tk

How can you have a vote in Congress when they aren't in town? They will barely be there for a few days before the election in November.

JMOP's picture
JMOP

The commander-in-chief isn't in town, he's on his two week vay cay. Doesn't stop him from bombing away.

What's up with all the recesses, and vacation time with all three branches? People "of the people" get to work!

The Big Dog's back

The Repub Congress is on a 2 month vacation.

grumpy

How long is thew Dimorat Congress vacation?

The Big Dog's back

The Speaker of the House calls vacation times. Now who might that be? Shut up and go back to sleep.

just observing

The Senate is democrappers, they refused to vote on the immigration bill before they left town piddle.

Donegan

Your brain has been out to lunch since you have been on here.

coasterfan

I always chuckle when ultra-cons deride Obama for taking an occasional vacation. If you add up the amount of vacation days Bush took during his 8 years in office, it adds up to more than 2 full years. He actually was on vacation more days in 2001 than at the White House prior to 9/11.

just observing

Obama's lavish vacations and the cost to the taxpayers.
ttp://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism...

Maggdi

Apparently our current president didn't think an "occasional" vacation was in order for the most powerful person on the earth. I do believe he said as much when he was shilling for the job. To hear him explain it back then it was unseemly to relax when there was so much chaos in our troubled world. I was paraphrasing of course. I would never presume to think I had an iota of the communication skills as the "Won"

wasthere

AN occasional vacation? That's like saying a music teacher is teaching something meaningful.

ram03

When they are on vacation they can't ruin our lives with new laws and regulations. Let them meet twice a year unless there is a threat of invasion by an outside military force. I would let them keep the salary if they agreed to do that.

coasterfan

Ha! Exactly! I used to say just that: the more days Bush was on vacation, the fewer days he was around to mess things up. Unfortunately, he still found a way, huh?

Maggdi

Like with a 'pen' and a 'Phone'?

just observing

How long is Urkel in Martha's Vineyard this year?

JMOP's picture
JMOP

That's true Ram.

AJ Oliver

As citizens of a republic, the government and what it does belongs to YOU. You have a duty to know what it going on, analyze it for yourself, and tell the government what it is supposed to do. It's nauseating to see folks duck the blame for the disastrous Iraq wars (since 1990, really) when the responsibility is THEIRS. Which of you even got off you lazy, apathetic butts to learn the basics of the region, like what countries border Iraq and their roles in the conflict?
How about you Tom, can you do it?

Factitious

The civilized world has a duty to stop wholesale violations of human rights, especially genocide, quickly, effectively, and by force, when necessary. There is no injustice in the annihilation of perpetrators of genocide and mass murder; it may be the best option as a rescue strategy. Those who have the means to act and fail to do so are not righteous. Given the recent history of genocide on European soil, the reluctance and viciousness of the Europeans when faced with genocide anywhere is grotesquely shameful irony. U.S. should not have to act alone but must do so if necessary.

What we face is like a rabid dog at large, except that its bite results in instant death, and it bites everyone and everything it doesn't like as well as anyone who confronts it, and its explicit objective is to infect the world. Debating how to respond is idiocy that trivializes the value of lives of the victims. The Civilized world must act, not search for excuses to delay.

SamAdams

It has always seemed to me that you're right as concerns intervention in genocide. There can be all sorts of excuses and rationales offered up for war, and most of them involve one side or the other wanting something it doesn't have. In the case of genocide, though, how can you argue that the side engaging in such has a point, or that the side fighting to save all of those lives is wrong?

As a result, yes, I support anything and everything that can be done to stop ISIS in its tracks. What's being done now is nowhere near enough. These people are evil. No qualifiers, no need for some special context: EVIL.

I'd point out, however, that we don't have the most stellar history of protecting innocents against genocide. If we did, we would have intervened in certain African countries before now. Sadly, though genocide seems more than enough for ME, it apparently needs to be accompanied by something we need before we can summon up enough righteous indignation to act!

If you're looking for even more, by the way, I have to also agree with your definition of ISIS as a rabid dog at large. NO ONE is safe ANYwhere until ISIS is put down like the deadly ravening beast it is. Don't care about genocide? Don't care about oil? Don't care about politics or government on the other side of the planet? This one's coming here, folks, and a whole lot sooner and bloodier than we'd like if we don't stop it now!

The Big Dog's back

Wait a minute. I thought those kids at the border were the most danger to us. Now it's isis. sam , sit back in your bunker, we got this.

SamAdams

Clearly, you DON'T "got this." Illegal invaders continue to cross the southern border without repercussion (including gang members, drug cartel "employees," and yes, more children -- all of which means terrorists would have ZERO problems crossing as well). ISIS continues to stone, behead, crucify, and starve Christians as they take still more territory in the name of establishing a Caliphate -- and ISIS flags are flying outside houses in THIS country.

If that's what you call "we got this," what's next? A wholesale "we surrender" to all comers?

The Big Dog's back

Suit up sam and go do your part.

AJ Oliver

Sorry, Mr. Factitious, I don't buy it. In fact, the US government COMMITTED genocide quite recently in Guatemala, Indonesia, Iraq, Vietnam, Cambodia, and other countries. I must admit that the US did play a positive role in ending the genocide in Boania, but on the whole the militarists who dominate DC cannot be trusted. In Rwanda, they stood aside.

Factitious

That's a non-sequitur. If one has the means (and presumably the inclination) to stop a genocide today, they have a duty to do so, quickly and effectively. It's not clear whether you are implying that a party who committed a genocide yesterday has no standing to stop one today, or has no duty today, but either way, it doesn't follow.

PS - just curious; why do you think you know my gender? Don't mean to appear pompous, but feel free to address me simply as "Factitious." I'd be happy to address you as Dr. Oliver, without sarcasm, if you prefer. Actually, If you don't mind; I'd prefer to, because you've earned it.

AJ Oliver

OK, how about "Facti"?
Sorry if I came off as disrespectful (of anyone besides Contagion or Sugar - ha ha)
But respectfully, I disagree about using genocide as a principal to guide foreign policy - mostly becuase it is such a slippery concept, and has been so ridiculously abused by so many actors.

Factitious

No apology needed.

I'll give you that much, without conceding my position. The abuse, I mean. But I think you're avoiding addressing my point. What if it's really mass murder? If they're really going around beheading children for the crime of being born to parents of the wrong religion, do you favor action? Delay? Hands off? Surely you agree that although "genocide" is sometime used metaphorically, it does indeed happen? What then? Could Germany redeem itself by putting boots on the ground? Could the U.S.? Or would air strikes and support suffice? Can I goad you into confronting your inner conflicts and addressing this head-on? Doctor?

tk

As far as vacations, no President whether Democrat or Republican is ever really on vacation. They are on call 24/7. If they can get a little R and R, great. They need it more then any of us. There is no job more stressful.

JMOP's picture
JMOP

Lol. They need it more than any of us! Putting them on a pedestal huh?
I guess obama would be pretty tired traveling around in AF1 attending 400 fundraisers (yes! 400!) for democrats. I'm tired from it too. Can I go to Africa or Hawaii on taxpayers dime? How many vacations is acceptable in a year when this man puts down people who are prosperous? Hypocrisy!!!

The Big Dog's back

Were you born a moron or did you study to be one. What job in this country is more stressful than the POTUS's? Repub or Dem, it doesn't matter.

JMOP's picture
JMOP

You crack me up sometimes with your silly comments. You have the ability to read, but your comprehension is still lacking. Where did I state that being the POTUS isn't a stressful job? Is it any more stressful being a neurosurgeon, a Pope, or being parents of a terminally ill child taking care of them 24/7? Tell me? Do they not deserve to have lavish vacations?

Thanks for the moron comment Dog, I'm sure your comment won't get deleted for name calling again.

CommonsenseNow

Did you ever go for that walk I recommended? Seriously. You need to get some fresh air. You don't have to be so ... hmmmmm ... defensive all the time? Just say your peace and leave it at that. What good does name calling do? Not good for your soul to go around and call people names all the time. Lighten up.

KURTje

This is why we need a mandatory draft. All abled bodied people should serve regardless of peace or war. Then we'd have less blo-rods.