PDA

View Full Version : Nancy Pelosi gives Obama authorization for Military force in Iraq based on lies.



genglandoh
06-19-2014, 01:24 PM
For years Nancy Pelosi has been saying that the vote for Military force in Iraq was based on lies and was therefore not valid.
Basically she was saying do not hold me accountable for my vote.
Today she is saying it is OK for Obama to use Military force in Iraq because of these votes.

From CNN.
Obama prepared to send military advisers to Iraq
While the White House statement emphasized Obama would continue to consult with Congress, Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky said the President "basically just briefed us on the situation in Iraq and indicated he didn't feel he had any need for authority from us for the steps that he might take."
House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi of California agreed with McConnell's assessment, adding she believed congressional authorization for military force in Iraq back in 2001 and 2003 still applied.
http://www.cnn.com/2014/06/19/politics/us-iraq/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

Paul Pless
06-19-2014, 01:33 PM
Idiotic.

Keith Wilson
06-19-2014, 01:49 PM
Indeed. Not polite, but true.

slug
06-19-2014, 01:56 PM
I wonder who the military advisers will be advising ? The good guys ?? The whole place is a hornets nest.

CWSmith
06-19-2014, 02:03 PM
As a Democrat, she is NOT my favorite politician. I believe she has her position of power because she is very good at raising money. In many other ways she is unsatisfactory to me.

S.V. Airlie
06-19-2014, 02:05 PM
I hear the term "military Advisors" and the first thing I think of is the admin. of Ike and Kennedy

slug
06-19-2014, 02:16 PM
I just listened to an interview with Gen Garner .

"That, Garner said, is something America should stay well away from.


“I think what we're seeing right now is an Arab-on-Arab war, we're seeing a religious war, and I don't think we need to get in the middle of that.”


“We’re in a situation there that is a far greater threat to Iran than it is to us in the United States, and I for one do not support putting any air power in there or putting any more troops on the ground than necessary to evacuate our embassy or to protect those people in the embassy.”

leikec
06-19-2014, 02:18 PM
Idiotic.

Nice edit....:D

Jeff C

John of Phoenix
06-19-2014, 02:30 PM
“We’re in a situation there that is a far greater threat to Iran than it is to us in the United States, and I for one do not support putting any air power in there or putting any more troops on the ground than necessary to evacuate our embassy or to protect those people in the embassy.” - LT General Jay Garner

Well said. The eons old Sunni/Shia battle is Iran's problem. ISIS is on Iran's doorstep, Malaki is their puppet, let them fight their own battles.

"Yankee come home."

Paul Pless
06-19-2014, 02:30 PM
Nice edit....:D

Jeff Cyes, thank you scot. . .

LeeG
06-19-2014, 03:02 PM
Wait, what about the nukes Obama is giving Iran?

bobbys
06-19-2014, 03:57 PM
Wait, what about the nukes Obama is giving Iran?
.
Are those the nukes he told the Ukraine to give up for his protection?

Durnik
06-19-2014, 05:52 PM
I hear the term "military Advisors" and the first thing I think of is the admin. of Ike and Kennedy

Bingo!




“We’re in a situation there that is a far greater threat to Iran than it is to us in the United States, and I for one do not support putting any air power in there or putting any more troops on the ground than necessary to evacuate our embassy or to protect those people in the embassy.” - LT General Jay Garner

Well said. The eons old Sunni/Shia battle is Iran's problem. ISIS is on Iran's doorstep, Malaki is their puppet, let them fight their own battles.

"Yankee come home."

Pretty much. There's also no reason to believe ISIS is 'the bad guy' - al-Maliki not being such a 'good guy', himself.

Any way you look at it "Yankee come home" it is.

peace
bobby

PeterSibley
06-19-2014, 05:56 PM
.
Are those the nukes he told the Ukraine to give up for his protection?

Ukraine with Nukes ? wouldn't that be fun.

Donn
06-19-2014, 05:58 PM
There's also no reason to believe ISIS is 'the bad guy'..

You're kidding, right? You didn't see the photos they posted of themselves performing mass executions of civilians and soldiers, or do you approve of such?

bobbys
06-19-2014, 06:04 PM
You're kidding, right? You didn't see the photos they posted of themselves performing mass executions of civilians and soldiers, or do you approve of such?.

maybe he thinks they are a branch of the Boy Scouts.

hanleyclifford
06-19-2014, 06:35 PM
Yup, Obama takes the first step down the slippery slope with the approval of Nancy (the female military expert) Pelosi. Does anybody yet understand why the Commander in Chief needs to have had some military experience?

Durnik
06-19-2014, 06:41 PM
http://forum.woodenboat.com/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Durnik http://forum.woodenboat.com/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://forum.woodenboat.com/showthread.php?p=4199082#post4199082)
There's also no reason to believe ISIS is 'the bad guy'..

You're kidding, right? You didn't see the photos they posted of themselves performing mass executions of civilians and soldiers, or do you approve of such?

I completely disapprove - including, esp, when the U.S. did it with bulldozers in the 1st Iraqi War - but you might take my statement in context. Here it is, 'un-snipped' -


There's also no reason to believe ISIS is 'the bad guy' - al-Maliki not being such a 'good guy', himself.

ISIS arose in response to western interference (read, Cheney & Rumsfeld's Invasion) putting al-Maliki in power, a power he is/was using to 'stamp on his rivals' - whose people are now saying "F_ you" right back.

Meaning, while ISIS is obviously 'a bad guy', so is al-Maliki.. Either way, it's "Yankee Come Home". The U.S. has done enough damage.

Insanity is believing the same acts will produce different results.

peace
bobby

ccmanuals
06-19-2014, 06:41 PM
Yup, Obama takes the first step down the slippery slope with the approval of Nancy (the female military expert) Pelosi. Does anybody yet understand why the Commander in Chief needs to have had some military experience?

Admit it. Your really thankful that Obama is sitting in that office right now rather than Bush, McCain or Romney. No one will think any less of you.

hanleyclifford
06-19-2014, 06:53 PM
Admit it. Your really thankful that Obama is sitting in that office right now rather than Bush, McCain or Romney. No one will think any less of you. I'm sure you're right on that last statement, but not for the presumed reason. But if Eisenhower were in that office the decision would have been very different. I have no doubt that Bush, McCain or Romney would be doing exactly what Obama is doing, and Romney with the gusto born of stupidity.

Durnik
06-19-2014, 06:53 PM
Admit it. Your really thankful that Obama is sitting in that office right now rather than Bush, McCain or Romney. No one will think any less of you.

Lord knows I am!

enjoy
bobby

hanleyclifford
06-19-2014, 06:59 PM
Lord knows I am!

enjoy
bobby Good juncture for the Dems/Libs to get a little religion.;)

Cuyahoga Chuck
06-19-2014, 07:50 PM
Your fiddle needs a new string, geng.

seanz
06-19-2014, 08:07 PM
I wonder who the military advisers will be advising ? The good guys ?? The whole place is a hornets nest.


Stunning misinterpretation of the situation. In a hornet's nest, the hornets are all on the same side.
;)

hanleyclifford
06-19-2014, 08:09 PM
Your fiddle needs a new string, geng. This fiddle is just getting tuned up

David G
06-20-2014, 01:52 AM
It is the habit of many political commentators - both public and private - to jump in early, interpret events to the furtherance of their own ideological leanings, then clam up when a full unfolding reveals them to be incorrect. By then, they've moved on to being wrong on some other topic, helping to convince the uninformed, and muddying the waters. Adding nothing to the national discourse except cynicism and confusion. It's sad, pathetic, and aggravating.

They never seem to change or learn. One has only to look at their track record to decide who might fall into this category.

slug
06-20-2014, 02:57 AM
Stunning misinterpretation of the situation. In a hornet's nest, the hornets are all on the same side.
;)


Hornets are cannibals...they kill thier own when stressed.

epoxyboy
06-20-2014, 03:15 AM
Ukraine with Nukes ? wouldn't that be fun.
OT, but the Ukraine had nukes, and gave them up having received an assurance from Russia etc that their borders would be respected. That hasn't worked out so well for them.

Pete

Clarkey
06-20-2014, 04:47 AM
This fiddle is just getting tuned up

So you admit it sounds pretty poor and off-key at the moment then?

hanleyclifford
06-20-2014, 08:09 AM
So you admit it sounds pretty poor and off-key at the moment then? Are you old enough to to remember the Vietnam progression?

LeeG
06-20-2014, 08:12 AM
.
Are those the nukes he told the Ukraine to give up for his protection?

No, Geng said Obama was giving nukes to Iran

John Smith
06-20-2014, 09:17 AM
What happened to the idea of showing a little patience?

I'd like to remind everyone, as everyone has forgotten, that the authorization to use force, if necessary, led to Saddam granting the weapons inspectors access they had previously been denied. That meant the military was NOT necessary; only more time for the inspectors. It was Bush who denied them that time.

I realize that everyone, including Hillary, has to respond to the popular perception, even though it is wrong. Invading Iraq appeared inevitable, and that resolution was an effort to avoid the invasion, and it did what it was hoped to do; get the weapons inspectors the access they needed. Given more time, they would have disarmed Saddam of any weaponry he was not supposed to have.

I don't know why everyone forgets that the inspectors got the access, then BUSH changed the mission from disarming Saddam to removing him, yanked the inspectors, and invaded. There was nothing in that resolution about removing Saddam. Nor was it in the UN resolution that came the following month.

We all remember "freedom fries", but we seem to forget how they came to be. When Bush changed the mission to removing Saddam, UN support left. France voted against us. That made us angry. Bill O'Reilly was going to boycott France.

But, now we are here. Any authorization to invade Iraq, no matter how construed, ended with the ending of the war. Obama has, I believe, 60 days to 'play with' before needing congressional action.

I'd LIKE to think he is not planning to follow in the footsteps of Ike and Kennedy. I've also heard from what seem to be knowledgeable people that the Sunni uprising is not as big or as well funded as we might think, and a modest amount of help may keep the government there stable. May.

Our president has been under great pressure from both sides. I think this move on his part bought some time. It has a very possible outcome of maintaining the status quo and preventing further advance from the ISIS. Then, I suspect, he'll turn to congress, and force members to cast votes. They are great at back seat driving. Let's see what they do when he hands them the wheel.

genglandoh
06-20-2014, 09:46 AM
No, Geng said Obama was giving nukes to Iran

No I said Obama may make a deal with Iran to look the other way and allow Iran to develop nukes.

David G
06-20-2014, 10:04 AM
Evidence? We don't need no steenkin' evidence!!! There was an article at Breitbart/Newsmax/Fox/FreedomWorks. Didn't you read it? And you consider yourself well-informed???

ccmanuals
06-20-2014, 11:19 AM
https://fbcdn-sphotos-h-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xap1/t1.0-9/10460709_900176463342335_1165568020571843090_n.jpg

Durnik
06-20-2014, 11:41 AM
along about the time hell freezes over..

enjoy
bobby

hanleyclifford
06-20-2014, 01:02 PM
along about the time hell freezes over..

enjoy
bobby I think we're probably arming them right now (albeit with "used" stuff).:)