Discussion: Officials Won't 'Restrict' Military Action In Syria To Address Iraq Crisis

Discussion for article #224136

OBAMA DOUBLE SPEAK: “NO BOOTS ON THE GROUND,” BUT THEN HE ORDERS 300 “BOOTS ON THE GROUND” AS ADVISERS, WHO WILL BE WAGING WAR AGAINST ISIS BECAUSE THE IRAQI ARMY CANNOT.

And another thing: Will these 300 be covered by some status of forces agreement that protected U.S. troops and American contractors from prosecution in Iraqi courts before the U.S. withdrew? Remember, the rationale the Obama Administration gives for leaving no residual force behind is that the Iraqi government refused to extend the original status of forces agreement to protect any residual troops.

Carl Kirsch
Atlanta, GA

Attack on Iraq Would Violate US Law, Experts Warn
…“An attack on Iraq would violate the Constitution and the War Powers Resolution,” warns Paul Findley, author of War Powers Resolution

Paul Findley, 22 year veteran of the U.S. House of Representatives, who was a key author of the War Powers Resolution, warned in a statement, "Just as with threats to attack Syria last year, an attack on Iraq would violate the Constitution and the War Powers Resolution. As with any president, he [President Obama] commits an impeachable offense if he does not follow the Constitution.”

Unedited: