(01-08-2020, 10:36 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I see this as the GOP being unhappy with the briefing they received. Nowhere did I read a republican saying there was no current threat. Perhaps you could point it out. 

(01-09-2020, 10:15 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: “There was no specific information given to us of a specific attack. I didn’t learn anything in the hearing that I hadn’t seen in a newspaper already. None of it was overwhelming that X was going to happen,"

-Rand Paul

I understand that you're probably going to focus on the semantics of the words Benton chose, but the question members of Congress had was what imminent threat was there that allowed the President to circumvent Congress in engaging in military action. If the Trump administration is going to assert legal authority by using the President's Commander-in-Chief constitutional powers (which they have), legally they need to demonstrate to Congress that there was an imminent threat. 

Rand Paul clearly states that there was no evidence shown of a specific imminent threat. 

(01-09-2020, 09:09 AM)Benton Wrote: Agreed. And it's mind boggling.

We're two decades (nearly) into military action to deal with terrorists responsible for an attack on us soil (at least, that was how it was sold). 20 years and it's not working? It's like our military is being led by Marvin Lewis with Congress serving as the Brown family. 'well, it's really hard to win, so we'll just see how this plays out.'

It's not working. And Congress isn't doing their job by throwing money at it year after year.

(01-09-2020, 10:15 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: “There was no specific information given to us of a specific attack. I didn’t learn anything in the hearing that I hadn’t seen in a newspaper already. None of it was overwhelming that X was going to happen,"

-Rand Paul

I understand that you're probably going to focus on the semantics of the words Benton chose, but the question members of Congress had was what imminent threat was there that allowed the President to circumvent Congress in engaging in military action. If the Trump administration is going to assert legal authority by using the President's Commander-in-Chief constitutional powers (which they have), legally they need to demonstrate to Congress that there was an imminent threat. 

Rand Paul clearly states that there was no evidence shown of a specific imminent threat. 

(01-09-2020, 02:09 AM)Benton Wrote: Do you grasp that straw with the left hand or the right?

I'm guessing the right.

(01-09-2020, 10:51 AM)bfine32 Wrote: There's no "focusing on semantics" hell many Dems came away saying they didn't know whether or not there was imminent danger. To say the GOP came away from the meeting suggesting their was no imminent danger is not semantics; it's false. Or as some may say "fake news".

Quote:301 views

[color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.84)]

Rick Wilson
@TheRickWilson[/color]

[color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.84)]1/ The assertion by Lindsay Graham that today’s bizarre performance by Sniffles The Clown was on par with “Tear Down This Wall” is part of the Saddamification of the GOP.

What are the new rules? [/color]

2/ - Never be the first guy to stop clapping when Trump speaks.

- It is always the Year Zero; memory and consistency is the enemy of loyalty in the Trump world.

- Your superlatives are insufficient. Praising Trump properly demands a new vocabulary of obsequiousness. 


[color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.84)]3/ - Your humiliation in his service will asymptotically approach infinity, with the pain and shame mounting but never reaching the sweet release of death.

- Never tell him the truth. He is the tallest, most handsome, brilliant, and richest man in the room. 

[/color]
[color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.84)]4/ - Even when he’s wrong (and he’s almost always wrong), race for the TV cameras to proclaim that you and everyone else was simply unable to grasp the sublime complexity of his 47-dimensional chess game. [/color]

5/ - If he wants to mount your spouse, let him. You let him screw your reputation, honor, dignity, principles, and political priors. Why not your wife?

- Always give the Trump Crime Family a cut of your consulting contracts for the campaign and the RNC. 


6/ - Never forget that if you don’t suck the chrome off the metaphorical trailer hitch, someone else in Washington will. It is a city without elected heroes.

- He will let you die in prison. Prepare accordingly. 


7/ - Snitch of get snitched on. Trust no one. Lie constantly. Don’t sleep in the same place more than two nights. Moscow rules. 

(01-09-2020, 10:51 AM)bfine32 Wrote: There's no "focusing on semantics" hell many Dems came away saying they didn't know whether or not there was imminent danger. To say the GOP came away from the meeting suggesting their was no imminent danger is not semantics; it's false. Or as some may say "fake news".

(01-09-2020, 11:22 AM)Benton Wrote: I see this as some democrats being unhappy with the imminence. I've seen one democrat say the briefing left them unable to determine if it was imminent. Perhaps you could point out the others.






FYI, I didnt say the gop said there was no imminent danger. I said from Republicans (plural, meaning more than one) it sounds like there wasnt a current threat. As in, more than one Republican has indicated by the information provided that there was not an immediate threat.


Which matters in this time of hyper partisanship. If Republicans (individuals, not the party as whole) are questioning the action, then maybe it's... Not entirely a partisan issue. Maybe a couple guys are doing their job. 


I did not say the gop (as in the party) said there was no immediate danger.


You can fake news all day. You've still got a minority of Trump's party and a majority of not Trump's party unsatisfied with the legitimacy of the action. Which just leads to more questions on whether there was any imminent threat or if this was an abuse of authority.

(01-09-2020, 11:09 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: So, what is being said is that they were not shown evidence of an imminent threat/danger. A lack of evidence of an imminent threat would mean, logically, that there was not an imminent threat.

(01-09-2020, 11:38 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Have you been shown evidence of an imminent threat?

Would you say there was no imminent threat?

2 members of the GOP spoke out against the quality of the briefing they received. They felt information was not shared freely with them. Neither indicated there was no imminent threat; as was suggested. Perhaps there were reasons the briefing was generic in terms. Who knows maybe Booker would feel that another Spartacus moment was required to make him relevant again.

I think you know what was suggested by Benton was not accurate, but I expect no one to concede so I'll let it lie (pun intended) 

(01-09-2020, 11:55 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: I'm not someone who is supposed to be shown the evidence as it's not up to me to provide approval for the actions. However, those that are supposed to be shown the evidence came away saying they weren't shown evidence of an imminent threat. This includes Senator Paul. If the administration is, by law, supposed to show there was an imminent threat and doesn't provide that evidence, then were I a Senator I would have to conclude there was not an imminent threat. That is the situation as it stands.

Feel free to let it lie. Your intellectual dishonesty is on full display for this one so we already know this will not go anywhere.

Quote:"It was probably the worst briefing I've seen at least on a military issue in the nine years I've served in the United States Senate," Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, said.

Lee said he left the briefing "somewhat unsatisfied" with the information given "outlining the legal, factual and moral justification for the attack."
"I find this insulting and demeaning," Lee added, saying that he now plans to vote in favor of a new war powers resolution from Democratic Sen. Tim Kaine of Virginia. "That briefing changed my mind," Lee said.
Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., standing next to Lee, concurred, saying, "Today, this is Sen. Lee and I saying, we are not abdicating our duty."

(01-09-2020, 12:15 PM)jj22 Wrote: https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/09/politics/pence-iran-missile-strike/index.html?utm_medium=social&utm_term=link&utm_content=2020-01-09T13%3A54%3A28&utm_source=twCNN

Pence - Iran strike meant to kill Americans. Nothing symbolic about it.

Why is he even stating this after America conceded to Iran's threat if we retaliated? Not helping at all as it relates to America's unprecedented defeat at the hands of Iran.

(01-09-2020, 12:14 PM)GMDino Wrote: Full Lee video.

https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4844098/user-clip-mike-lee-ballistic