We Bombed Iraq and Syria 2800 times killing hundreds of innocent civilians without congressional approval, gave you Nobel prize

The 2001 and 2002 AUMFs would beg to differ. They certainly supported war in Iraq and, it has been argued, Syria and other countries where Al-Qaeda could be found

Honestly, I think those two have been stretched and strained over the years, and I’d have liked Obama to get a new AUMF for some of the stuff he did.

But there is no congressional approval whatsoever for bombing Iran or its officials.

If you can twist the 2001 or 2002 AUMFs to say that, then be my guest, but then it negates whatever problems you have with Obama twisting it.

The meme points out the hypocracy of the left, not necessarily condemning what Obama did.

I think a lot of the Left opposed Obama on this

Yes, it nearly made them spit and not swallow for once.

You're still using what you think as facts.
The left was praising Obama, Liberals cheered and drooled over Obama.
The MSM didn't report on the 26,171 bombs Obama dropped in 2016.
They were too busy covering Trumps rallies saying Trump had a 7% chance to win.

You won't even deny Obama dropped that many bombs in a single year.
You're speculating that the 2001 and 2002 AUMFs would beg to differ without presenting any evidence. Keep pretending you know what the hell you are talking about.

You really are retarded

A lot of those bombs you say were dropped by Obama were Iraq and Syria — are you saying we shouldn’t have fought ISIS? The AUMF-based justification for fighting them was pretty strong actually. And most Republicans did not object at all. If anything, they continually criticized Obama for being too weak on ISIS. Al-Qaeda could also be found in Syria and that’s who we attacked — not the Syrian government itself which would have required a new AUMF in my opinion.

Look: This Soleimani thing is about killing another country’s #3, an unprecedented assassination that greatly increases the chance of open war. And certainly reduces the scope of possible diplomacy with Iran in the future.

I cited the 2001 and 2002 AUMFs in the hopes you would read them. You want me to make my point more clear. Okay: Neither one authorized or even mentions use of force against Iran. Al-Qaeda was not in Iran.

Now of course Trump is trying to tell Congress that Al-Qaeda *was* as an after-the-fact justification. What a joke.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2019/06/19/us/politics/us-iran.amp.html

I'm saying you're one of the hypocritical Obama defenders the Meme was directed at.

You keep proving it is factual.

Keep struggling, Retard.

Go spend another 2 months in Naziland taking wienerschnitzel up your gaping anus, terrorist lover.

Your obsession with Nazi's And your hatred of Israel is very telling.

Rage, Vagisil, Rage.

Go figure.

How was your 2 month visit to Naziland?

You've been raging for 3 days on a Meme that went over your empty head.
It's f**kin hilarious.
Rage away, Vagisil. Scream you're a loser until you pass out. No one cares about you, No one is listening.

Rage fit in 3.2.1.
Go my little rage puppet. I own your sorry ass, You can't resist, Lmao

Rage, Vagisi, Rage.
No one cares what your loser ass says.

You're a loser whining about Israel on a Meme mocking the hypocrisy of Obama apologists like you. It's hilarious how enraged you are.

Rage, Vagisil, Rage

No wonder you don't submit your Memes, You can't Meme, You don't know how certain ones work, You're color blind, And you don't know how to use the fonts. It's like watching a child scribble on a piece of paper thinking it's art.

You're my little rage puppet... Watch me pull your string.

Rage, Vagisil, Rage. ROFL

Now I understand why you constantly use your G-man templates.
You don't have the intelligence to use the other Flip templates.
You're also struggling with the tricky fonts.

Rage, Vagisi, Rage.

The strain of a military accident that happened when you were crapping in your diaper has haunted you throughout your whole failed life.

Nazi's killed Jews, You are so mentally stunted, You don't even know which side you're on.

Rage, Vagisil, Rage.

Nazis killed a whole mess of people, including their own Brownshirts, so get off that roof put your victim violin away.

Absolutely no one will notice you're deflecting.
No one notices you at all, And you can't figure out why.

Rage, Vagisil, Rage.

An "accident" you called it.
Yeah, that lasted 1.5 hours. Traitor.

Did the lefts opposition stop Obama from dropping 2.800 bombs?
Did the left stop traffic, Start riots, And scream at the sky?

Keep pretending you can think.

That's 2,800+ terrorists that can't kill us anymore, you silly silly shill.

The Meme went right over your empty head Vagisil. I'm shocked

Wait, didn't the US missile attack occur in Iraq?

Yes but a top Iranian official was the target. We couldn’t bomb the French president if he just happened to be in Iraq.

So this happened in Iraq, and the Hey You MFer authorized military force in Iraq. I mean, are you saying that our people in Iraq are supposed to sit around with their thumbs, playing Shoot This One, Not That One, while people are trying to kill them?

We’ve killed Iranian militias in Iraq before. If it’s self-defense, fine. But if you want to assassinate a country’s #3, you get an AUMF.

If we’re at war with Iran, then get Congress to acknowledge it.

The 2001 AUMF authorization grants the president a congressional stamp-of-approval to use force against those responsible for the Sept. 11 attacks, and those who harbored them. In other words, against al-Qaida and the Taliban.

A decade and a half later, the Obama administration argues that the authorization continues to apply to U.S. military actions in Afghanistan. Also, that it applies in Iraq, in Syria, and beyond — including the ongoing air campaign in Libya, against ISIS — a group that did not exist 15 years ago.

We were at war with Syria and Libya Obama never got congress to acknowledge it.
Obama never received a AUMF.

There goes your libtarded narrative.

We were never at war with "Syria" under Obama. We were at war with terrorist groups inside Syria, including ISIS, who it has been argued was a proper target under both the 2001 and 2002 AUMFs. The 2001 AUMF is not a great argument for the reasons you mention.

The 2002 AUMF is probably a better argument, since ISIS was operating in Iraq, although it is more difficult to argue that it supported the portion of the war against ISIS carried on inside of Syria. Of note, Trump continued this war against ISIS in Syria without getting an AUMF of his own. So any problems Obama had with using the 2002 AUMF in this way can be attributed to Trump as well.

Between Obama and Trump, Trump is the only one who famously shot missiles at the Syrian government *directly* in retaliation for their use of chemical weapons. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Shayrat_missile_strike. He probably should have gotten an AUMF to do that.

Indeed, we were at war with Libya, and yes, Obama should have gotten an AUMF for that.

I don't know where you're getting this notion that I have supported every bombing decision Obama has made. I can criticize him, and I can criticize Trump, and I can criticize even Congress for not properly doing its job and insisting on an AUMF every time it's needed.

We were never at war with "Syria" under Obama. We were at war with terrorist groups inside Syria, including ISIS A group that didn't exist in 2001 or 2002.

Who argued, Did congress argue? Did they vote?
I must have missed that on CSPAN. I know the media weren't reporting on it 24/7.
They didn't report on it until Obama called ISIS, JV.

Indeed, we were at war with Libya, and yes, Obama should have gotten an AUMF for that.
BUT OBAMA DIDN'T GET A AUMF for that.

So you're a hypocritical libtard like I said. Like the Meme says. GOT IT.

Did you rant for a week when Obama dropped those 2,800 bombs without a AUMF. Did you rant endlessly for Obama's war in Libya without congressional approval... Nope

It's hilarious. You keep pretending you are smart, But all your replies are copied from Wikipedia or another source, Meaning you have absolutely no Idea what you are talking about.
I can pinpoint exactly where Wikipedia stops and your libtarded logic takes over.

Very few people on either side of the aisle opposed the war against ISIS. If anything, Obama was criticized by Republicans for not dropping *enough* bombs on them. I feel like we've been over this already in this thread.

When ISIS became a thing, I was mostly just stunned at the total incompetence of the Iraqi forces in totally folding and retreating from northern Iraq. And, again, reminded what a dumb decision it was to invade Iraq in the first place. A decision made by George W. Bush.

I don't like ISIS, and I'm glad they're gone. There is plenty of blame to go around, to be sure, but most of it falls on Republicans, especially Dubya.

Yes, We've established Obama didn't have a AUMF for his war against The ISIS JV squad.
We've established you weren't old enough to vote in 2008 or 2012.
We've established You had no Idea who Soleimani was, Until Trump turned him into pieces of burning charcoal.

We've established you're a hypocritical Libtard, Using Wikipedia as a crutch to debate topics you know absolutely nothing about.

When ISIS became a thing you were stunned at the total incompetence of the Iraqi forces, Not Obama's incompetence for pulling American forces out of Iraq, Against the advice of his "TOP OFFICIALS"(LOL) Military advisors, that created the vacuum that fueled the rise of ISIS.

ISIS rose to power during Obama's failed presidency, But like a good little Libtard Democrat. It was Bush's fault.

Your entire comment was all your opinion, It didn't contain a single fact. Wikipedia must have been down, Or you couldn't find a source that fit your libtarded narrative.

Keep struggling, KylieFan

Attacking me for citing sources, and attacking me for *not* citing sources, lol.

I cite Wikipedia for your benefit, not mine. I don't have to research these topics in depth before replying to you because I know them like the back of my hand.

I was old enough to vote in '08, and I did not vote for Obama which made me quite the outlier among most of my college peers. I voted McCain. I then voted Gary Johnson in '12.

I was not a huge fan of Obama for various reasons, some of which I've already stated, but in the rear-view mirror, his presidency is looking better and better every day.

So many of these troubles we're having today with Middle Eastern stability are downstream effects of Bush's decision to invade Iraq in 2003. Obama, *and* Trump, and whoever sits in the Oval Office next have dealt and will deal with the fall-out.

Your libtarded logic.

They don't have to do that if there is an AUMF in place. Which we should do every possible time we send our troops into combat, in my opinion. That is certainly the spirit of the War Powers Act.

Without an AUMF, a President gets 60 days, max, to deploy troops with a 30-day withdrawal period after that.

If Trump thinks Iran is a terrorist nation and wants to kill their top officials, then he should go to Congress. Make the case and get the nation's elected to agree with you. Lead.

You skipped over Obama not receiving a AUMF
I wonder why. Oh I know why... Because you're a hypocritical libtard who voted for Obama...TWICE.

A General is not a top official, Retard.

Show me where Trump said he wants to kill Iran's top officials.

Re: Obama and AUMFs, see above. He wasn't perfect.

I did not vote for Obama either time, actually.

Soleimani was a lot of things, including the leader of the Quds force which has been analogized to our CIA chief. I don't know how you can argue that a person considered Iran's #3 was not a "top official."

Trump actually did kill a top Iranian official so I don't care whether he "says" he wants to or not. Everyone tells me to look at Trump's actions, not his words. Well, this time I am.

Obama and AUMFs, see above. He wasn't perfect. But you didn't rant for a week.
You weren't old enough to vote for Obama. You were still going through your liberal indoctrination.

Here you are... 25-28 years old, Using Wikipedia as a crutch to prop up your defense of a terrorist.
Top officials are cabinet members. You would know that if you were educated instead of pretending to be.

KylieFan_ (Soleimani was a lot of things,) ( Wikipedia) including the leader of the Quds force which has been analogized to our CIA chief. (KylieFan) I don't know how you can argue that ( Wikipedia or your TV) a person considered Iran's #3 was not a "top official."

It's easy to spot When your argument is you and when it's Wikipedia and your TV.

Trump killed a terrorist, But you're a libtard. You don't do facts unless they fit. your libtarded narrative.
Everyone tells me to look at Trump's actions, not his words. Well this time he killed Soleimani, A man I never knew existed until my TV told me he was a hero, So I'm going to whine...endlessly.

According to Trump there was an imminent threat... Any news on that?

It wouldn't matter, You deranged Anti-Trumpers would ignore itt and continue screaming OrangeManBad.

That justification has been offered by Trump’s spokespeople since the beginning. So far I’ve seen nothing solid supporting it.

Did Obama receive congressional approval or hold congressional debates when he assassinated The top official Bin laden?

I must have missed your outrage when Obama violated that constitutional clause.

If what he (Soleimani) did makes him a terrorist, then our top military officials are terrorists too. And Iran therefore has the right to assassinate Trump, our Secretary of Defense, our CIA chief, and other top generals.

Iranian officials have been chanting "Death to America since 1979" Long before Trump was elected or any top American officials were promoted to their current positions.

They can't assassinate any top officials, But they are trying.

That's the logic you're espousing.
Iran appreciates your support.

Well I'm hoping there was an actual imminent threat and this isn't simply more BS being fed to the public.. without a legit reason we look like a bunch of f*ckin cowboys over here. It's almost like he was labeled a terrorist after we killed him (and that would obviously be a disturbing precedent).. As far as I know he wasn't on an FBI wanted list beforehand either.. but idk. Maybe I'm wrong about that.

You won't see anything solid supporting it, You libtards only see what you want to see.

The only evidence that would satisfy Sore loser Democrats, Unhinged Libtards and America hating lefties would be an American embassy in flames, And dead American soldiers corpses being paraded through the streets.
You'd be screaming OrangeManBad is weak and inept. OrangeManBad got his own Benghazi.

If any details have emerged of a specific plot Soleimani was involved in that required him to be assassinated right then and there to
save American lives, feel free to educate me.

He was a terrorist, That is all that is required to kill a terrorist.
He wasn't assassinated retard. He was blown into little pieces.
Feel free to keep crying over a dead terrorist who killed hundreds of American servicemen/woman, And thousands of civilians.

Soleimani wasn’t great but he did kill a lot of ISIS dudes. The Middle East is complicated.

If what he did makes him a terrorist, then our top military officials are terrorists too. And Iran therefore has the right to assassinate Trump, our Secretary of Defense, our CIA chief, and other top generals.

They won’t, since they probably can’t, and even if they could they would fear the retribution, but that is the logic you’re espousing.

If you want to escalate a conflict like this, go to Congress.

Soleimani was the one who coordinated the Iraqi Shiites, Kurds, and Iranian soldiers ousting ISIL from Iraq in the ops Trump took credit for. He was doing similar in Syria with Kurds & Iranians.

Look something up for once in your miserable life.

Yes the president is the commander and chief, he can act against terrorist threat without approval of Congress. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Powers_Resolution going to leave this here to show you dont know what you are talking about and that everyone else you have been arguing with is correct. Cheers!

That rationale would be stronger if there were evidence that Soleimani posed a specific and imminent threat to U.S. citizens. Which I asked for above. So far I haven't seen any, nor has anybody here provided such evidence.

From the Wikipedia article you posted:

1. "The Trump Administration stated that the attack on Qasem Soleimani was carried out in accordance with the War Powers Resolution under the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists (AUMF) resolution of 2001. The legalities of using the AUMF for endless conflicts has been a source of debate.

--The Trump Administration is trying to claim the 2001 AUMF authorized this, which is a tremendous stretch.
--See: https://www.congress.gov/107/plaws/publ40/PLAW-107publ40.pdf. Note how the AUMF is targeted against those responsible for 9/11. Was Soleimani responsible for 9/11? You tell me.

2. "On January 9, 2020, the House of Representatives voted 224–194 to pass a non-binding War Powers Resolution to limit the president's ability to pursue military actions against Iran without congressional consent."
--Congress is indicating its disapproval and signaling that if Trump wants an AUMF against Iran, he won't get one.

"That rationale will be stronger if" typical libtard way to argue wit "what if-ims" the attack on the embassy was all that was needed. Stop looking at your biased media, Soleimani hand a good number of american deaths under his hands. If you can't see that then I am wasting my time on you like everyone else.

Soleimani was a terrorist, Period..
Here you are whining about it.

I keep saying you're a retard, You keep going out of your way to show how retarded you are.

Kyliefan set his/her comments so I can't reply. That jackwagon keeps proving that he/she has no clue what he's talking about. Typical leftard. Too much CNN Bullshit in that one's head.

Does the Constitution say the President can go around the world assassinating top officials of foreign countries, without congressional approval or any congressional debate whatsoever, as long as he considers those officials to be “terrorists”?

I missed that clause

When a French President becomes a terrorist your nonsensical talking points will have meaning

Clang,Clang,Clang. There you go again, Moving the goalposts.