First, the Obama administration armed Syrian rebels who were fighting Assad's forces, not ISIS.
Second, the AUMF after 9/11 was to go after those responsible for the attacks, namely Al Qaeda. ISIS is not Al Qaeda, and barely existed at the time. The original AUMF (which is older than Kanye West's entire career) has been used to justify every military action since 9/11, to the point of absurdity. The only connection that can be seen is al-Zarqawi, a founder of one of ISIS's predecessors, swearing loyalty to Bin Laden and Al Qaeda.
It's a big mess over there. Isn't ISIS fighting on the rebels side against Asad? So we are fighting on the same side as ISIS.
Sadly, it's moot at this point. Congress has ceded their war authority to the executive for undeclared wars for so long that WW2 was our last declared war (neither the Korean war nor Vietnam were declared wars). Congress, should it find a spine somewhere, could reclaim their constitutional powers by repealing the 2001 AUMF that has been the cited authority for the past 17 years of US military adventures.
@CamDawg do you think that SCOTUS should rule on the legality of a war when the War Powers Resolution is violated? It's an interesting question that I'm torn on myself.
I've never really considered it before TBH, but I guess it would depend on the violation though I'll freely admit I probably don't understand enough of the legal nuance to give an informed answer. Something like the executive claiming police action vs. Congress claiming war would probably require a SCOTUS ruling. OTOH something where the executive is stretching its authority under an AUMF--e.g. the 2001 AUMF and Syria under Obama or Trump--seems like a matter best solved with a congressional vote, though it would probably devolve to the previous scenario* and end up requiring SCOTUS anyway. I strongly believe making Congress actually have to go on the record and vote its approval/disapproval for every military action would slow down, and some times stop, many of them.
I'd just like to see the legislative, at some point in my lifetime, actually check and possibly reverse the ever-expanding power of the executive. You'd think a power that's explicitly granted to them in the constitution would be a good place to do so. Plus, you know, maybe we'd get into fewer wars.
* E.g. if Congress voted tomorrow that they do not give their approval for war in Syria, the Trump administration would simply claim it's a police action or one of the other legal euphemisms for a war.
Are Syria, France and the United Kingdom going to shoot missles and bomb us next for poisoning children in Flint and gassing Native Americans at Standing Rock?
This is just the kind of stuff that makes liberals look dumb. There is no way that the State of Michigan INTENDED to poison anybody in Flint. Let alone intentionally poisoning children. The very idea is ludicrous! If that was the case we wouldn't be shelling out $1 billion in tax money to pay for that fiasco. If Syria pays out one dime for INTENTIONALLY poisoning their own people I'll die of shock...
you know there's criminal negligence too, right? assad probably criminally neglected to mention to his croneys not to throw chlorine canisters onto residential areas anymore
There was no intent? Perhaps not but intentional negligence and years of deferring repairs and incompetence, what's that?
At any rate, the result is poisoned kids. How does pointing that out make all liberals look dumb. We've got problems enough at home to tackle instead of blowing hundreds of millions of dollars on one time use munitions over there in a foreign land on the other side of the earth.
It makes us look dumb because false equivalences are dumb. Pointing out the criminal negligence of Flint is right and good, but not so much when it's a whataboutist response to the use of chemical weapons.
it's not a whataboutism because it's a valid and logically scrutable policy statement that us should severely punish poisoners at home and not try to punish poisoners abroad (and fail to punish them while at that) unless it's in the best interest of the US
also, it's not a "liberal" (a word that has lost meaning anyway) argument per se.
I think we're inferring too much from that statement. It's just somebody sarcastically supporting intervention in Syria and using the occasion to call attention to the criminal negligence in Flint. The statement was in jest.
I think we're inferring too much from that statement. It's just somebody sarcastically supporting intervention in Syria and using the occasion to call attention to the criminal negligence in Flint. The statement was in jest.
I'll just day that it's not a very good jest. I grew up near Flint. Trying to save money because Detroit charges too much for it's water is not the same as nerve gassing your own people. Period!
Yeah they botched it but its not the 1st time the government botched something. That's my main beef with government to begin with. They seldom hire the best to do anything. There always seems to be croneyism, nepotism or downright bribery involved no matter who any level of government hires to do a job. It doesn't matter which party is in charge either. Flint and Detroit are both run by Democrats at the city level. I live just south of Detroit and pay for Detroit water. It's probably some of the best water in the world but it isn't cheap. I don't blame Flint for trying to save a buck by treating their own water. I'm sure there are lots of other things they would have liked to spend their tax dollars on. Unfortunately, they and the State of Michigan dropped the ball horribly and now the whole f'ing state has to pay the bill. Say goodbye to a lot of money that could have been spent on fixing our horrible roads (some of the worst in the country). Hiring a reputable engineering company to oversee the transition would have likely prevented the problem but hey, why would the government hire competent people when they can line one of their buddies pockets or save a buck by just using the folks they have on hand whether they know what they're doing or not???
I think we're inferring too much from that statement. It's just somebody sarcastically supporting intervention in Syria and using the occasion to call attention to the criminal negligence in Flint. The statement was in jest.
Something to think about. Not meant as a direct 100 equal comparison. That it has caused this much of a stir leads me to believe it has hit a nerve or guilt or something. Surprised.
I'll just day that it's not a very good jest. I grew up near Flint. Trying to save money because Detroit charges too much for it's water is not the same as nerve gassing your own people. Period!
Yeah they botched it but its not the 1st time the government botched something. That's my main beef with government to begin with. They seldom hire the best to do anything. There always seems to be croneyism, nepotism or downright bribery involved no matter who any level of government hires to do a job. It doesn't matter which party is in charge either.
I'd add that they often hire the lowest bidder as well, and you often get what you pay for. It can get you a company with little experience that gets in over its head quickly or underbid and can't meet the terms of the contract.
With Flint, it seemed like the problems were known for years and just ignored or passed on to be someone else's problems later. That bill came due with a vengeance. Sad.
I'll just day that it's not a very good jest. I grew up near Flint. Trying to save money because Detroit charges too much for it's water is not the same as nerve gassing your own people. Period!
Yeah they botched it but its not the 1st time the government botched something. That's my main beef with government to begin with. They seldom hire the best to do anything. There always seems to be croneyism, nepotism or downright bribery involved no matter who any level of government hires to do a job. It doesn't matter which party is in charge either.
I'd add that they often hire the lowest bidder as well, and you often get what you pay for. It can get you a company with little experience that gets in over its head quickly or underbid and can't meet the terms of the contract.
With Flint, it seemed like the problems were known for years and just ignored or passed on to be someone else's problems later. That bill came due with a vengeance. Sad.
And that's the point where it went from "dropping the ball" to "intentionally poisoning children".
I'll just day that it's not a very good jest. I grew up near Flint. Trying to save money because Detroit charges too much for it's water is not the same as nerve gassing your own people. Period!
Yeah they botched it but its not the 1st time the government botched something. That's my main beef with government to begin with. They seldom hire the best to do anything. There always seems to be croneyism, nepotism or downright bribery involved no matter who any level of government hires to do a job. It doesn't matter which party is in charge either.
I'd add that they often hire the lowest bidder as well, and you often get what you pay for. It can get you a company with little experience that gets in over its head quickly or underbid and can't meet the terms of the contract.
With Flint, it seemed like the problems were known for years and just ignored or passed on to be someone else's problems later. That bill came due with a vengeance. Sad.
And that's the point where it went from "dropping the ball" to "intentionally poisoning children".
No, the problems weren't real problems until they started pumping the more acidic water from the Flint River. They were still using mostly lead pipes (like many, if not most, older cities in the U.S.) but if they hadn't switched from Detroit water, or if they had taken the proper precautions, there would have been no issues. Major screw-up for sure, but certainly not intentional. I can explain the chemistry involved but it would be pretty boring. I have an article from a chemical journal if anybody is truly interested...
The science makes sense to me. Hundreds of years ago, the lead in pewter never poisoned anyone who cooked with pewter pots and such, up until they started cooking tomatoes in pewter vessels, at which point the acid in the tomato juice removed traces of lead from the pewter and people who ate tomatoes cooked in pewter vessels started getting poisoned. Folks from the Old World drew the erroneous but reasonable conclusion that it was the tomatoes that were poisonous and not the pewter.
The science makes sense to me. Hundreds of years ago, the lead in pewter never poisoned anyone who cooked with pewter pots and such, up until they started cooking tomatoes in pewter vessels, at which point the acid in the tomato juice removed traces of lead from the pewter and people who ate tomatoes cooked in pewter vessels started getting poisoned. Folks from the Old World drew the erroneous but reasonable conclusion that it was the tomatoes that were poisonous and not the pewter.
It has to do with a pacification layer on the lead itself that prevents it from dissolving in the water (kind of analogous to the protective ozone layer in the atmosphere shielding us from harmful UV rays). That layer is very sensitive to changes in pH though. Had they used the proper chemical pre-treatment nothing would have happened.
In the age of the internet it is absolutely BS that things like the Flint fiasco can still happen. It's high time that our government enters the 21st century and finds out that there are far better ways to use advanced technology than killing people, spying on them or otherwise trying to control them (ie: fake news!). If the knowledge of how to avoid poisoning people wasn't available with a quick Google search (not sure if it was or not but I'm amazed at what knowledge is out there on the web - including detailed instructions on how to fix my 30 year old washing machine), then the names of people or companies who have that knowledge are readily available. Too bad politicians are elected more for their personalities and charisma than for their intelligence or wisdom...
In the age of the internet it is absolutely BS that things like the Flint fiasco can still happen. It's high time that our government enters the 21st century and finds out that there are far better ways to use advanced technology than killing people, spying on them or otherwise trying to control them (ie: fake news!). If the knowledge of how to avoid poisoning people wasn't available with a quick Google search (not sure if it was or not but I'm amazed at what knowledge is out there on the web - including detailed instructions on how to fix my 30 year old washing machine), then the names of people or companies who have that knowledge are readily available. Too bad politicians are elected more for their personalities and charisma than for their intelligence or wisdom...
And yet, in the meantime, until that happens.......
I'll just day that it's not a very good jest. I grew up near Flint. Trying to save money because Detroit charges too much for it's water is not the same as nerve gassing your own people. Period!
Yeah they botched it but its not the 1st time the government botched something. That's my main beef with government to begin with. They seldom hire the best to do anything. There always seems to be croneyism, nepotism or downright bribery involved no matter who any level of government hires to do a job. It doesn't matter which party is in charge either.
I'd add that they often hire the lowest bidder as well, and you often get what you pay for. It can get you a company with little experience that gets in over its head quickly or underbid and can't meet the terms of the contract.
With Flint, it seemed like the problems were known for years and just ignored or passed on to be someone else's problems later. That bill came due with a vengeance. Sad.
And that's the point where it went from "dropping the ball" to "intentionally poisoning children".
No, the problems weren't real problems until they started pumping the more acidic water from the Flint River. They were still using mostly lead pipes (like many, if not most, older cities in the U.S.) but if they hadn't switched from Detroit water, or if they had taken the proper precautions, there would have been no issues. Major screw-up for sure, but certainly not intentional. I can explain the chemistry involved but it would be pretty boring. I have an article from a chemical journal if anybody is truly interested...
The science doesn't matter to my point. Five months after elevated lead levels were detected, the mayor of Flint went on TV and drank a glass of tap water to reassure people the water was safe. If the water is poisoned, and the government is encouraging people to drink it, they are intentionally poisoning people.
I'll just day that it's not a very good jest. I grew up near Flint. Trying to save money because Detroit charges too much for it's water is not the same as nerve gassing your own people. Period!
Yeah they botched it but its not the 1st time the government botched something. That's my main beef with government to begin with. They seldom hire the best to do anything. There always seems to be croneyism, nepotism or downright bribery involved no matter who any level of government hires to do a job. It doesn't matter which party is in charge either.
I'd add that they often hire the lowest bidder as well, and you often get what you pay for. It can get you a company with little experience that gets in over its head quickly or underbid and can't meet the terms of the contract.
With Flint, it seemed like the problems were known for years and just ignored or passed on to be someone else's problems later. That bill came due with a vengeance. Sad.
And that's the point where it went from "dropping the ball" to "intentionally poisoning children".
No, the problems weren't real problems until they started pumping the more acidic water from the Flint River. They were still using mostly lead pipes (like many, if not most, older cities in the U.S.) but if they hadn't switched from Detroit water, or if they had taken the proper precautions, there would have been no issues. Major screw-up for sure, but certainly not intentional. I can explain the chemistry involved but it would be pretty boring. I have an article from a chemical journal if anybody is truly interested...
The science doesn't matter to my point. Five months after elevated lead levels were detected, the mayor of Flint went on TV and drank a glass of tap water to reassure people the water was safe. If the water is poisoned, and the government is encouraging people to drink it, they are intentionally poisoning people.
Science isn't that simple unfortunately. There are people who can tolerate much more lead than others for one thing. There was no 'lead limit' hundreds of years ago and people weren't dying like flies. The reason we even know how much lead is in the water now is that we're capable of measuring it down to parts-per-trillion levels for the first time in human history. The technology is really quite amazing and I have the privilege of working with people at the leading edge of that technology. However, there is never going to be 'zero' lead in water. Lead is a pretty common element and impossible to eradicate completely. The limits are arbitrary and always have been. There is NO empirical data on what the lowest level of lead should be considered 'non-poisonous'. The same applies to mercury. The toxic effects are known because of people who worked with high levels of lead or mercury routinely as part of their jobs (mad hatter syndrome with mercury for example). Just because high levels of something is toxic, doesn't mean low levels are...
I'll just day that it's not a very good jest. I grew up near Flint. Trying to save money because Detroit charges too much for it's water is not the same as nerve gassing your own people. Period!
Yeah they botched it but its not the 1st time the government botched something. That's my main beef with government to begin with. They seldom hire the best to do anything. There always seems to be croneyism, nepotism or downright bribery involved no matter who any level of government hires to do a job. It doesn't matter which party is in charge either.
I'd add that they often hire the lowest bidder as well, and you often get what you pay for. It can get you a company with little experience that gets in over its head quickly or underbid and can't meet the terms of the contract.
With Flint, it seemed like the problems were known for years and just ignored or passed on to be someone else's problems later. That bill came due with a vengeance. Sad.
And that's the point where it went from "dropping the ball" to "intentionally poisoning children".
No, the problems weren't real problems until they started pumping the more acidic water from the Flint River. They were still using mostly lead pipes (like many, if not most, older cities in the U.S.) but if they hadn't switched from Detroit water, or if they had taken the proper precautions, there would have been no issues. Major screw-up for sure, but certainly not intentional. I can explain the chemistry involved but it would be pretty boring. I have an article from a chemical journal if anybody is truly interested...
The science doesn't matter to my point. Five months after elevated lead levels were detected, the mayor of Flint went on TV and drank a glass of tap water to reassure people the water was safe. If the water is poisoned, and the government is encouraging people to drink it, they are intentionally poisoning people.
I would drink Flint water no problemo now. Even the nasty smelling stuff was likely just sulfate in the water and thus non-toxic. The Democrat mayor wasn't lying or putting himself in danger by drinking it at that point. I personally would continue supplying free bottled water for the remainder of this year but that's just for optics, not because I think it's scientifically necessary...
In the age of the internet it is absolutely BS that things like the Flint fiasco can still happen. It's high time that our government enters the 21st century and finds out that there are far better ways to use advanced technology than killing people, spying on them or otherwise trying to control them (ie: fake news!). If the knowledge of how to avoid poisoning people wasn't available with a quick Google search (not sure if it was or not but I'm amazed at what knowledge is out there on the web - including detailed instructions on how to fix my 30 year old washing machine), then the names of people or companies who have that knowledge are readily available. Too bad politicians are elected more for their personalities and charisma than for their intelligence or wisdom...
And yet, in the meantime, until that happens.......
So who do you believe? Comey or Trump? To me it's not even a serious question. One of them flip flops on everything, is always making up stuff that he's heard (from who?), he'll tell you things that "many" people say, and who uses his office to do grade school bullying, taunting and name calling. Not to mention the scams such as a fraud University and casinos & bankruptcies, maritial affairs, etc. Believe me. Nah brah. I don't. Not even a little bit. Do you?
Trump is Trump--no more analysis necessary there. Comey, on the other hand, *disastrously* handled the Clinton e-mail probe--he should not have opened the case during the campaign, then closed it, then opened it again, all of which served to make him look like a bumbling fool. Worse than that, he made a *political* decision about a law-enforcement case rather than making the decision as an impartial, non-political director of a law enforcement agency. I am certain that there are many truths in his book but on the other hand it probably comes off as a lot of sour grapes and being a disgruntled ex-employee. Had he wanted to retain some class he should have just walked away from it all rather than writing a tell-all book.
Comey attempts to tell us, in his book, that "the foundation of this country is in jeopardy when we stop measuring our leaders against that central value of the truth". The problem with that lovely-sounding sentiment is that *all* politicians wind up telling lies. "I did not have sex with that woman." "Mission accomplished." "If you like your doctor you can keep your doctor." If we are going to measure our leaders against the value of truth, then our leaders must be measured against the value of truth at all times. If we don't, then we must determine which lies are acceptable and which ones are not. The question which must be asked at that point is simple: if lying about x is okay, then why is lying about y not okay?
All politicians may lie, but that doesn't mean they have no regard for the truth. I think most politicians would like to tell the truth in principle, even if they find it expedient to tell lies from time to time. Trump seems to be highly unusual in his apparent total lack of respect for the truth, even lying in situations which give him no obvious gains. That may make him well suited to a social media world, but I don't think his example is good for politicians as a whole.
Comments
Where's this trump?
I'd just like to see the legislative, at some point in my lifetime, actually check and possibly reverse the ever-expanding power of the executive. You'd think a power that's explicitly granted to them in the constitution would be a good place to do so. Plus, you know, maybe we'd get into fewer wars.
* E.g. if Congress voted tomorrow that they do not give their approval for war in Syria, the Trump administration would simply claim it's a police action or one of the other legal euphemisms for a war.
At any rate, the result is poisoned kids. How does pointing that out make all liberals look dumb. We've got problems enough at home to tackle instead of blowing hundreds of millions of dollars on one time use munitions over there in a foreign land on the other side of the earth.
also, it's not a "liberal" (a word that has lost meaning anyway) argument per se.
Yeah they botched it but its not the 1st time the government botched something. That's my main beef with government to begin with. They seldom hire the best to do anything. There always seems to be croneyism, nepotism or downright bribery involved no matter who any level of government hires to do a job. It doesn't matter which party is in charge either. Flint and Detroit are both run by Democrats at the city level. I live just south of Detroit and pay for Detroit water. It's probably some of the best water in the world but it isn't cheap. I don't blame Flint for trying to save a buck by treating their own water. I'm sure there are lots of other things they would have liked to spend their tax dollars on. Unfortunately, they and the State of Michigan dropped the ball horribly and now the whole f'ing state has to pay the bill. Say goodbye to a lot of money that could have been spent on fixing our horrible roads (some of the worst in the country). Hiring a reputable engineering company to oversee the transition would have likely prevented the problem but hey, why would the government hire competent people when they can line one of their buddies pockets or save a buck by just using the folks they have on hand whether they know what they're doing or not???
With Flint, it seemed like the problems were known for years and just ignored or passed on to be someone else's problems later. That bill came due with a vengeance. Sad.
In the age of the internet it is absolutely BS that things like the Flint fiasco can still happen. It's high time that our government enters the 21st century and finds out that there are far better ways to use advanced technology than killing people, spying on them or otherwise trying to control them (ie: fake news!). If the knowledge of how to avoid poisoning people wasn't available with a quick Google search (not sure if it was or not but I'm amazed at what knowledge is out there on the web - including detailed instructions on how to fix my 30 year old washing machine), then the names of people or companies who have that knowledge are readily available. Too bad politicians are elected more for their personalities and charisma than for their intelligence or wisdom...
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/08/us/flint-water-bottles.html
If I lived in Flint, I wouldn't trust the water coming out of my faucet ever again.
Trump is Trump--no more analysis necessary there. Comey, on the other hand, *disastrously* handled the Clinton e-mail probe--he should not have opened the case during the campaign, then closed it, then opened it again, all of which served to make him look like a bumbling fool. Worse than that, he made a *political* decision about a law-enforcement case rather than making the decision as an impartial, non-political director of a law enforcement agency. I am certain that there are many truths in his book but on the other hand it probably comes off as a lot of sour grapes and being a disgruntled ex-employee. Had he wanted to retain some class he should have just walked away from it all rather than writing a tell-all book.
Comey attempts to tell us, in his book, that "the foundation of this country is in jeopardy when we stop measuring our leaders against that central value of the truth". The problem with that lovely-sounding sentiment is that *all* politicians wind up telling lies. "I did not have sex with that woman." "Mission accomplished." "If you like your doctor you can keep your doctor." If we are going to measure our leaders against the value of truth, then our leaders must be measured against the value of truth at all times. If we don't, then we must determine which lies are acceptable and which ones are not. The question which must be asked at that point is simple: if lying about x is okay, then why is lying about y not okay?