How to Join Member's Area Private Library Search Today's Topics p Login
Main Forums Discussion Tech Talk Mature Content Archives
   Nav Win
 Discussion
 Feelings
 Obama   [ Page: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  ]
 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74
Follow us on Facebook

 Moderated by: Alwye   (Admins )

 
User Options
Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Admin Print Send ECard
Passions in Poetry

Obama (Superman)

 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


50 posted 03-23-2011 06:21 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

"SEC. 3. The President in every possible instance shall consult with Congress  before introducing United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the  circumstances, and after every such introduction shall consult regularly with the Congress until United States Armed Forces are no longer engaged in  hostilities or have been removed from such situations."

Is it your contention then, Uncas, that involvement in hostilities was so imminent that Obama had no chance to discuss it with congress? WHy, then, are so many democratic congressmen against his action of not bringing it up? One possibility is that it might have interfered with his vacation, since he left the same day he committed our troops. I would consider that to be fairly unbelievable with any other president, but not Obama. It's more than possible. Another possibility is that he didn't know  what to ask for. There seems to be no clear-cut plan of action defined.

I had always thought that Bush had the biggest ego to ever sit in  the Oval office. Obama makes him look like an amateur. During his term, he has shown complete disregard for what the people think, what republicans think and what congress thinks. If he feel like doing something, he just does it....and he doesn't let it interfere with his golf game or vacation.

He and Biden are now stating the exact opposite of what they said as senators concerning Bush and his actions. If Biden were to stand by his previous statements, he would want to indict Obama. If Obama were to stand by his previous statements, he would have to indict himself.

Obama didn't contact Congress because he didn't want to.....period.
Uncas
Member
since 07-30-2010
Posts 348


51 posted 03-23-2011 06:55 PM       View Profile for Uncas   Email Uncas   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Uncas

Well the fact that it doesn't actually mention an attack on the US is a fairly large clue Denise.



The War Powers Resolution basically says that it'd be nice if the President would let congress know when they were going to commit armed forces into situations that would result in hostilities or at least mention it within a couple of days of doing so.

So what's the punishment if the President decides not to inform Congress? According to the War Powers Resolution, the answer is absolutely nothing - it doesn't contain any redress for non-compliance.

Don't get me wrong, I think the President is definitely acting contrary to the intentions of the US Constitution, as did a whole bunch of Presidents before him, unfortunately they, like him,  have the ill- conceived and badly written War Powers Resolution to hide behind.

One interesting fact is that every President since its introduction has contested the constitutional legitimacy of the resolution itself. Their argument? That it adds unnecessary constraints to the constitutional power of the President.



quote:
Is it your contention then, Uncas, that involvement in hostilities was so imminent that Obama had no chance to discuss it with congress?


Nope,

It's my contention that the War Powers resolution is badly written and contains holes in it big enough for any President to drive several tanks through.

quote:
Obama didn't contact Congress because he didn't want to.....period.


That's incorrect Mike, he did contact members of Congress and in doing so fulfilled all the requirements laid out in the War Powers Resolution.
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2011/03/18/obama-to-confer-with-congress-on-libya/

.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


52 posted 03-23-2011 07:36 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Your link refers to a meeting he planned to have on Friday.

On Friday, during this meeting, he said

In the face of this injustice, the United States and the international community moved swiftly.  

...which means he  had initiated action before holding the meeting with them.

His reasoning for action?

Now, here is why this matters to us.  Left unchecked, we have every reason to believe that Qaddafi would commit atrocities against his people.  Many thousands could die.  A humanitarian crisis would ensue.  The entire region could be destabilized, endangering many of our allies and partners.  The calls of the Libyan people for help would go unanswered.  The democratic values that we stand for would be overrun.  Moreover, the words of the international community would be rendered hollow.

And that’s why the United States has worked with our allies and partners to shape a strong international response at the United Nations.  Our focus has been clear: protecting innocent civilians within Libya, and holding the Qaddafi regime accountable.


You may inject thee name of several other countries in there to get that same valid statement....even Iraq, while under control of Saddam Hussein.

So, whenever there is a country whose civilians are in jeaopardy by a murderous regime,  Obama may immediately send firepower to stop it to protect the civilians, without notifying  congress first? No wonder Rangel is trying to re-enact the draft!
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


53 posted 03-23-2011 08:03 PM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

There hasn't been a declaration of war since WWII, Bob. My only point was that Bush obtained the prior approval of Congress before he committed troops to Afghanistan and Iraq, since it seemed that Rob was unaware of that fact.

No doubt, Uncas, that Congress is very adept at creating badly written legislation. And yet any loopholes, real or imagined, can be dispelled when viewed through the lens of the policy behind the law as the foundation in a correct interpretation:

The first part states the policy behind the law, namely to "insure that the collective judgment of both the Congress and the President will apply to the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities," and that the President's powers as Commander in Chief are exercised only pursuant to a declaration of war, specific statutory authorization from Congress, or a national emergency created by an attack upon the United States (50 USC Sec. 1541).

And specifically as regards the limitations on the authority of the President:

c) Presidential executive power as Commander-in-Chief; limitation

The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to

(1) a declaration of war,
(2) specific statutory authorization, or
(3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.

http://www.loc.gov/law/help/war-powers.php

Therefore, absent a declaration of war by Congress, or Congressional authorization, or a national emergency created by an attack on the United States, the President cannot legally commit armed forces to a military conflict.
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


54 posted 03-24-2011 03:33 AM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K




     Denise, perhaps you didn't read what I wrote.  I said that there had not been a declaration of war by us since world war II.  Perhaps you missed that.

     I also said that both parties had committed troops as though that was all right, and as though their power as commander in chief extended that far when in fact it does not.  In fact, the power to declare war is explicitly assigned to congress, and a committment of troops without a declaration of war is beyond the intention of the founders.  That has not stopped Presidents from both parties from doing so.  In fact, it didn't stop Roosevelt from doing so, and in effect fighting an undeclared war in the Atlantic against the Nazis for close to two years before Pearl harbor using our Merchant Marine and using destroyers from our navy as escorts for the convoys to England during that time.  We lost a lot of ships and men.

     Pearl Harbor provided an acceptable Causus Belli, and the Germans declared war on us, followed shortly thereafter by our declaration of war on them.

     I was not suggesting that the flaw was exclusively Republican.  Though I certainly like to believe that the Republicans are the cause of all evil, I actually know that this is not the case, and that there are a large number of unthinking Democrats as well, and that thoughtlessness is close to the top of my list of the causes of evil in this world.  Greed is high up there on my list as well.

     Your thoughtful list about the flaws in President Obama's approach to his plans for Libya could easily be paralleled by an equally thoughtful list about President Bush's approach to Iraq, yet was not.

     President Bush's adventure was and remains a multi-trillion dollar Fiasco based on lies that has led to the bankruptcy of the the American government and quite possibly the American dream.  I am certainly angry at President Obama, and I have said so.  I think he is a sweetheart compared to the mess we are still trying to comprehend let alone clean up left over from the previous administration.
moonbeam
Deputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 12-24-2005
Posts 2038


55 posted 03-24-2011 04:55 AM       View Profile for moonbeam   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for moonbeam

No I wasn't unaware of it Denise, it's all in the word "consult".

No time now, back later.
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


56 posted 03-24-2011 06:05 AM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

Bob, Bush obtained prior Congressional approval, as defined in the War Powers Act. BHO did not.

Rob, consulting with is not the same as obtaining the required prior approval of the House and Senate via voting on the issue after discussions.
moonbeam
Deputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 12-24-2005
Posts 2038


57 posted 03-24-2011 07:09 AM       View Profile for moonbeam   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for moonbeam

From today's lead in the CS Monitor:

"“The president reminded us that we'd move forward in this action with the support of the Arab League,” Senator Durbin said in a conference call on Wednesday. “It may have taken a few extra days, but I think most would agree – I certainly would – that I think that was a very prudent course of action for the president and for our nation.”

He predicted that the White House will find bipartisan support for the Libya mission when the Senate returns next week."

Actually Denise I am not saying that either President was wrong in the actions they took at the time they went to war.

If you've ever tried to "consult" in a Parish Council meeting on a Planning Application then you'll know that one thing consulting does is cause delay and vacillation.  How much more impossible is the situation when you want to go to war.

Sure Bush "consulted", he concocted a case (possible based partly on "evidence" he knew to be shaky) that he could push through. Let's face it, a leader makes up his or her mind they are going to war, and then they try to do whatever it takes to get there. One would hope that nowadays a modern day Hiter would be stopped,but even that I'm not sure about.

So basically what I'm saying is that maybe neither Bush nor Obama are totally innocent of working the system for their own ends, but that's not really the important issue (which is why it's fairly futile to ramble on about "double standards").  The issue goes back to motive, morality and principles.

I totally believe Obama is working with the grain of world and Arab opinion in helping to deal with Gadaffi in line with the UN resolution, and any other agenda he may have is not paramount.

In contrast, in retrospect especially, Bush's motives for hitting Iraq were probably much more about a personal vendetta against Saddam than anything else.  The guy was, I think, fixated by revenge.  It certainly looks that way given the fact that very little prior thought was devoted to the aftermath of the war except to singlemindedly pursue Saddam spending millions on special forces operations to "get him" long after the war was won.

Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


58 posted 03-24-2011 07:30 AM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

Again, Rob, the issue is not "consulting". A vote is required in the Congress on the issue of the use of military force prior to deployment of miitary force absent a current attack against the U.S., for or against the use of military force, on the record. That's a higher level than merely consulting, as difficult as merely consulting can be.
moonbeam
Deputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 12-24-2005
Posts 2038


59 posted 03-24-2011 10:29 AM       View Profile for moonbeam   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for moonbeam

But I'm not debating mechanisms Denise - as Uncas here, and countless other threads in the Alley have shown, arguing about whether laws, statute, precedent etc have or have not been breached is fun, but usually circular, and a waste of time.  The leaders of our nations have access to unlimited funds and unlimited high level legal advice, and they aren't about to do anything that's going to land them in jail.  

What does it really matter if Bush or Obama took advantage of lax drafting to get their way.  Last time I checked Thatcher, Blair, Bush, Obama, even Clinton for God's sake, were all still at large, none of them arrested.  What matters surely, is, as I said before motive, morality, principle - the character of the leader, whether he/she is big enough to place national and world interest above self, etc etc.

Measured like that,I still think Obama ranks very high in the parade of recent world leaders.

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


60 posted 03-24-2011 11:26 AM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

"“The president reminded us that we'd move forward in this action with the support of the Arab League"

And that support is where, exactly??


By RICHARD LARDNER, Associated Press Richard Lardner, Associated Press – 1 hr 35 mins ago

WASHINGTON – As America's NATO allies shoulder a greater share of the mission in Libya, the Arab countries that urged the U.N. Security Council to impose a no-fly zone are missing from the action.

Except for the small Persian Gulf nation of Qatar, which is expected to start flying air patrols over Libya by this weekend, no other members of the 22-member Arab League so far have publicly committed to taking an active role. The U.S. has sold many of these countries, including Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, billions of dollars in sophisticated military gear over the past decade to help counter Iran's power in the region.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110324/ap_on_re_us/us_us_libya

"He predicted that the White House will find bipartisan support for the Libya mission when the Senate returns next week."

Whether they do or not, it will have been done. I'm reminded of Pelosi saying, "People will like the health bill when they find out what's in it."

"arguing about whether laws, statute, precedent etc have or have not been breached is fun, but usually circular, and a waste of time. "

When arguing about laws being breached is a waste of time, we are in real trouble.

"It certainly looks that way given the fact that very little prior thought was devoted to the aftermath of the war "

I couldn't agree more. That was my biggest complaint with going into Iraq. In this case, however, there was not only a no-exit strategy, there was not even a no-entrance strategy. Congress and even member of the administration did not even know why were were going in or what we were going to do when we did or what the main objective was. They heard Obama and Clinton bounce back and forthe between, "Quadaffi must go", to "Our objective is to not go after Quadaffi" several times over the past week. Even to this day, after many million dollar missiles have been spent, along  with a multi-million dollar fighter lost, no one still knows...and Obama is not giving specifics yet.

Yes, we all know Obama has no experience in either leadership or military, but it would be wise for him to listen to those who do instead of just jumping in without thinking things through, as he has done with Gitmo, the Patriot Act, health care and the stimulus program. He gives the impression that he could care less what others think, regardless of their expertise and his lack of same. WHen he feels congress amy disagree with him, he simply bypasses congress. These are not the characteristics of an able president.
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


61 posted 03-24-2011 01:00 PM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

Neither are they indicative of a person imbued with morality, character and principles.
moonbeam
Deputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 12-24-2005
Posts 2038


62 posted 03-24-2011 01:31 PM       View Profile for moonbeam   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for moonbeam

"He gives the impression that he could care less what others think,"

I agree, he not only gives that impression, his actions show he does too.

"WHen he feels congress amy disagree with him, he simply bypasses congress. These are not the characteristics of an able president."

Oh I don't know, I think they are the actions of a leader confident in himself and in his ability to deliver what his people and the world want.  

""“The president reminded us that we'd move forward in this action with the support of the Arab League"

And that support is where, exactly??"


You forgot the UN vote already Mike?

"arguing about whether laws, statute, precedent etc have or have not been breached is fun, but usually circular, and a waste of time. "

When arguing about laws being breached is a waste of time, we are in real trouble."


No - we are in the Alley!

[Edited - Discuss the post, please, not the posters. You're actually NOT in the Alley, MB, and in large part that's because you still appear to be trolling for combative reactions. Please stop. - Ron

"It certainly looks that way given the fact that very little prior thought was devoted to the aftermath of the war "

I couldn't agree more."


We agree on something!    

[This message has been edited by Ron (03-24-2011 04:31 PM).]

Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


63 posted 03-24-2011 09:21 PM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=279061
Essorant
Member Elite
since 08-10-2002
Posts 4689
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada


64 posted 03-24-2011 11:40 PM       View Profile for Essorant   Email Essorant   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Essorant's Home Page   View IP for Essorant


I admire this lady.  She always speaks about things clearly and intelligently.    

 




"ANNE-MARIE SLAUGHTER, DEAN, WOODROW WILSON SCHOOL OF PUBLIC AND INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS AT PRINCETON UNIVERSITY:

Well, I'm afraid, much as I like Richard, I disagree on just about every point.

Let's look at it in terms of where we were a week ago, where we had -- really a week ago, we didn't even have a U.N. resolution. Then we get a U.N. resolution that is supported by a remarkable coalition of countries, including Lebanon, and Colombia and Nigeria, other countries. Then Saturday, the first troops are -- the first planes are in the air. That's only three-and-a-half days ago. In three-and- a-half days, we have stopped Gadhafi in his tracks, we have prevented a massacre in Benghazi.

We are making progress and enabling the rebels to make progress outside other towns, as we just heard. In Tripoli, people are starting once again to make clear that they really don't support Gadhafi, that they're emerging from the blanket of fear.

And what we're hearing now, in only three-and-a-half days with nine nations in the coalition, we're hearing that members of Gadhafi's inner circle are reaching out to lots of governments, which is exactly consistent with the strategy we have been following. So I think three-and-a-half days in, that's not a bad track record.


COOPER: Anne-Marie, it does seem what that we're looking for ultimately is a political solution to this, meaning a political outcome, Gadhafi leaving or being taken out. Is a military -- is the military force really the best way to get a political outcome; in the past, does that work?

SLAUGHTER: Well, I think we're combing force with diplomacy and each has a distinct mission.

The use of force is designed to protect civilians, and it is succeeding in that goal, remarkably, in a short period of time. We are protecting civilians. We're basically forcing Gadhafi to fight much more fairly rather than invading cities and taking retribution.

At the same time, we have a diplomatic strategy of isolation and pressure to try to force Gadhafi out. Now, the military strategy has leveled the playing field. At the same time, we're working in many different ways, economic sanctions, political pressure, to change the calculations at least of the people around Gadhafi and it looks like that may be working as well.

So it's never one or the other. It's never just force or just diplomacy. Real statecraft is using them both in ways that reinforce each other. And I think there really are -- there are two missions here, but they do reinforce each other.

COOPER: Anne-Marie, just finally, do you agree with Richard Haass that we have now taken sides in a civil war? And if that is true, do you have a problem with that?

SLAUGHTER: I don't. I think that's exactly what Colonel Gadhafi wants us to believe. He wants us to see this as a civil war. But if it's a civil war, why is he having to pay foreign mercenaries to attack his own people?

As far as I'm concerned, there's very little evidence that this is not a popular uprising, and the minute you give people the ability to actually express their views free of fear, they are opposed to him. Indeed, even tribes that have been with him for a long time, you're seeing lots of fissures.

So I'm not saying there's nobody in Libya who supports him, but it is much closer to a popular uprising against a tyrant whose ruled for 42 years than a civil war.

[ http://edition.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1103/23/acd.01.html  ]

[This message has been edited by Essorant (03-25-2011 03:19 AM).]

moonbeam
Deputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 12-24-2005
Posts 2038


65 posted 03-25-2011 06:18 AM       View Profile for moonbeam   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for moonbeam

Wow what a contrast between the thoughtful constructive interview posted by Ess, and your link to the over-blown emotive rubbish from Diana West, Denise (can you really take a site with the headline ad "How to Hide your Guns from Criminals" seriously!?)

No conflict is good, and all conflict causes division and argument, but so far this seems to have more on the side of positive than negative imo.  Long may it last.

(Ron, I am not sure whether you are deliberately misunderstanding me, but you are.  Which is a pity.  But I haven't got the time or energy to explain myself any more.)

Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


66 posted 03-25-2011 07:53 AM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

I suppose like love, rubbish is in the eye of the beholder, Rob.

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


67 posted 03-25-2011 08:35 AM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

I agree, Denise. People will shoot messengers when points they can't refute are presented...nothing new.

People will also paint things any way they want. Bush had twice as many countries behind him when going into Iraq and the backing of congress. Obama sent troops without contacting congress and then went on vacation. The press blasted Bush and are giving Obama a pass. Posters here on the left side do the same.
moonbeam
Deputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 12-24-2005
Posts 2038


68 posted 03-25-2011 09:23 AM       View Profile for moonbeam   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for moonbeam

Very true Denise, as always, jmho.

What Blair and Bush did had implications for the world Mike, whether he had Congress behind him or not was largely immaterial from that point of view.  Did he have an unopposed UN resolution?  I seem to remember Blair and Bush and Spain's leader were pretty much lone voices at the critical point, and there was a lot of heavyweight hostility to the action, as well as major public demonstrations all over the world.

Apples and pears imo.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


69 posted 03-25-2011 09:56 AM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

actually, having congress behind him was not immaterial at all....and he had 30 countries behind him and participating, more than Obama has with regards to Libya.

I believe Obama knew he would run into congressional opposition so he just did and end run, acted and took off on vacation,  out of the country. Harping on the same double standard, if a republican president had done that, he would be tarred and feathered by both the democratic party and the mainstream media. They are both trying very hard to give Obama a pass, but even they are finding  that a little more difficult, day by day.

It IS easier to see how Obama got elected, however, McCain is an idiot.
serenity blaze
Member Empyrean
since 02-02-2000
Posts 28839


70 posted 03-25-2011 11:47 AM       View Profile for serenity blaze   Email serenity blaze   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for serenity blaze

It occurs to lil ole me that if that War Powers Resolution thingie was/is a wide loophole for our current President and others before him, then congress should be working toward legislation to tighten that up a bit.

All they seem to want to do is talk, though.

What's done is done, but I would sure feel better about whatever (whomever) the future might hold for the United States if such carte blanche was not a "wild card" option for say--a President Trump or President Palin or...



I wish more were being done about Japan, though. Hmmm.

I wonder if the Japanese would be interested in relocating their Toyota and Sony corporations to Detroit. Michipan? Japagin?

We still have a lot of housing available in New Orleans East, too.

Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


71 posted 03-25-2011 12:34 PM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

Fox News is now reporting that U.S. Marines are on the ground in Libya.

What happened to the claim that no ground forces would be deployed, that we were only doing a limited time fly-over and that command and control would shortly be handed over to NATO?
serenity blaze
Member Empyrean
since 02-02-2000
Posts 28839


72 posted 03-25-2011 12:49 PM       View Profile for serenity blaze   Email serenity blaze   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for serenity blaze

A quick zip through my news channels got me...zip.

They're talking about air traffic control right now.

*confused* The news ticker reported "troops" firing on crowds in Syria--CNN reported at least 15 protesters killed, but placed the responsibility on the protest-protesters.

It is all very confusing.
serenity blaze
Member Empyrean
since 02-02-2000
Posts 28839


73 posted 03-25-2011 01:06 PM       View Profile for serenity blaze   Email serenity blaze   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for serenity blaze

*frown*

According to Huffington post, the troops that opened fire on Syrians, were indeed, Syrian.

Fox loses yet another notch for adding to confusion.   --CNN just confirmed Huffington.  
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


74 posted 03-25-2011 01:15 PM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

They are in Libya, Karen, not Syria. 2200 Marines on the ground in Libya with more on the way.
http://www.onenewsnow.com/Security/Default.aspx?id=1316884
 
 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
All times are ET (US) Top
  User Options
>> Discussion >> Feelings >> Obama   [ Page: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  ] Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Print Send ECard

 

pipTalk Home Page | Main Poetry Forums

How to Join | Member's Area / Help | Private Library | Search | Contact Us | Today's Topics | Login
Discussion | Tech Talk | Archives | Sanctuary



© Passions in Poetry and netpoets.com 1998-2013
All Poetry and Prose is copyrighted by the individual authors