ptown_trojans_1;776561 wrote:No he didn't. Not while campaigning. He said he would get out of Iraq so we could refocus our troops to what is the real mission Afghanistan. That was the basis for the surge of 17,000 more troops. Some will be leaving in July, but overall there will be no dramatic drawdown till 2014. He has been consistent on Afghanistan since 2008.

OK...wrong choice of word. Instead of "simultaneously" I should have said "subsequently".

ptown_trojans_1;776561 wrote:GITMO he was/ is boxed in as Congress gave him no choice.

Well if he couldn't get it done without the support of Reid and Pelosi.....But when you stop and think about it, as Commander-in-Chief he should be able to find enough "murky Constitutionality" to close it anyway. After all, he can conduct military actions without Congressional approval right?

ptown_trojans_1;776342 wrote:He never said he would pull out of Afghanistan.

No, instead he cream-pied Afghanistan. Dirty.

believer;776587 wrote:


Well if he couldn't get it done without the support of Reid and Pelosi.....But when you stop and think about it, as Commander-in-Chief he should be able to find enough "murky Constitutionality" to close it anyway. After all, he can conduct military actions without Congressional approval right?

Not when Congress writes into law restrictions on where the detainees cannot go and writes a law refusing to cut funding to Gitmo. Last year Congress stated no detainee will be moved to the U.S. and funding will not be cut or will be closed.

dwccrew;777227 wrote:No, instead he cream-pied Afghanistan. Dirty.

Hahaha, nice.

ptown_trojans_1;777303 wrote:Not when Congress writes into law restrictions on where the detainees cannot go and writes a law refusing to cut funding to Gitmo. Last year Congress stated no detainee will be moved to the U.S. and funding will not be cut or will be closed.

For the sake of argument, if a president can circumvent Congressional approval to conduct "limited" military actions as Commander-in-Chief, what makes you think he or she cannot find, as you aptly put it, some murky Constitutionality to exercise his or her Constitutional right to act as Commander-in-Chief with regard to GITMO? GITMO is, after all, a military operation.

believer;777791 wrote:For the sake of argument, if a president can circumvent Congressional approval to conduct "limited" military actions as Commander-in-Chief, what makes you think he or she cannot find, as you aptly put it, some murky Constitutionality to exercise his or her Constitutional right to act as Commander-in-Chief with regard to GITMO? GITMO is, after all, a military operation.

Because its different.....
By law, the President cannot ship any detainees to the U.S. for civilian trial or move to close GITMO without military trials. Moving a detainee to the states is a bit more of an issue to a Senator or Rep than the murky War Powers Act. Just see New York and Virginia. No member of Congress wants a terrorist i ntheir district, while Libya doesn't matter in the grand scheme of a Congressmen getting elected.
Apples and oranges.

Point being, if Congress really wants to stop the war in Libya, they should pull funding or pass laws restricting what the President can do ala the Contras.

While I'm ready to see troops be withdrawn from Afghanistan now that we put a bullet into Osama bin Laden's face, I have no issues with GITMO remaining open. I don't even have any issues with Obama using executive powers to conduct limited military operations in Libya.

I'm just fascinated by the fact that part of the reason BHO miraculously wrestled away the Dem nomination from shoe-in Hillary Clinton was his song & dance routine to attract political support from the far left peaceniks. Yet GITMO is still functional (despite the Congressional ties). Plus we not only still have troops actively involved in Afghanistan, Iraq, and now - by the Nobel Peace Prize winner's own doing - Libya, I have to wonder where all the peaceniks have gone?

I was in the Philadelphia airport waiting to change planes the night Obama won the election. As I was watching the television monitors at my gate some wacko lady next to me was ranting (and I do not exaggerate), "This a wonderful day!! Finally peace is at hand! Thank God for Obama!! Bush is gone. Oh happy day!!"

Where are all the peaceniks now? My guess is they're still ready to re-elect their man.

Had McCain won the election, I have a hunch the media and the peaceniks would be having a field day right now. The only difference is I doubt McCain would have "won" a Nobel Peace Prize by default.

Just sayin'.........

believer;778450 wrote:While I'm ready to see troops be withdrawn from Afghanistan now that we put a bullet into Osama bin Laden's face, I have no issues with GITMO remaining open. I don't even have any issues with Obama using executive powers to conduct limited military operations in Libya.

I'm just fascinated by the fact that part of the reason BHO miraculously wrestled away the Dem nomination from shoe-in Hillary Clinton was his song & dance routine to attract political support from the far left peaceniks. Yet GITMO is still functional (despite the Congressional ties). Plus we not only still have troops actively involved in Afghanistan, Iraq, and now - by the Nobel Peace Prize winner's own doing - Libya, I have to wonder where all the peaceniks have gone?

I was in the Philadelphia airport waiting to change planes the night Obama won the election. As I was watching the television monitors at my gate some wacko lady next to me was ranting (and I do not exaggerate), "This a wonderful day!! Finally peace is at hand! Thank God for Obama!! Bush is gone. Oh happy day!!"

Where are all the peaceniks now? My guess is they're still ready to re-elect their man.

Had McCain won the election, I have a hunch the media and the peaceniks would be having a field day right now. The only difference is I doubt McCain would have "won" a Nobel Peace Prize by default.

Just sayin'.........

So it was a song and dance routine that he was another limp wristed liberal and in reality he's a pragmatic foreign policy realist? If you think the peace people are happy you haven't been looking very hard. Dennis Kucinich was calling for Barry's impeachment over Libya!

BoatShoes;780138 wrote:So it was a song and dance routine that he was another limp wristed liberal and in reality he's a pragmatic foreign policy realist? If you think the peace people are happy you haven't been looking very hard. Dennis Kucinich was calling for Barry's impeachment over Libya!

You cite Kucinich as an example of peacenik protest against BHO? Yeah, OK.

As far as the Bammer being a "pragmatic foreign policy realist" OK if you insist. Yet this is PRECISELY my point. I'm not slamming the Anointed One in this case. I'm simply remembering all the ultra-leftists who were dancing in the streets and singing kumbaya the day he won the election. Now BHO has not only continued Bush policies but has expanded them (IE: pragmatic foreign policy realist) and all the flower children have withered away.