Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell Blames Obama For JASTA Veto Override.

[Felya]

You tell me that I missed a point, then turn around and say the point I supposedly 'missed' was wholy and fully covered in my post... Which is it? I missed the point or I didn't?

Seeing as how you made a comment about democrats not getting the chainsaw, when only Mitch McConnel was the target, does mean you missed the point.

[Machismo]

Oh, I'm sorry, I didn't see the 'Rusty chainsaw' comment directed at any of the 42 Democrats that voted for the Veto...

The 42 Democrats aren't the ones whining that Obama didn't tell them the consequences, even though Obama laid out the consequences.

I don't think you understand just how ridiculous you sound right now. The mental gymnastics you are trying to pull off are a signal of some very serious cognitive dissonance.

[Felya]

The 42 Democrats aren't the ones whining that Obama didn't tell them the consequences, even though Obama laid out the consequences.

Niether are the republicans outside Mitch McConnel, thus the shade... the dude spooged when he saw McConnel and assumed all republicans were being blamed. This children of the corn "one of us" bullshit is frustrating...

[Seranthor]

...Because they aren't blaming Obama for failing to convince them to not override the veto.

No, they aren't saying anything, so those democrats that DID vote to veto aren't having 'buyer's remorse'... let that sink in. I think that if you are opposed to what 97 US Senators did then you should shade them ALL, not just the Leader.

[Machismo]

No, they aren't saying anything, so those democrats that DID vote to veto aren't having 'buyer's remorse'... let that sink in.

You are clearly not getting what everyone is talking about. Sometimes, it's better to simply walk away, and stop digging.

[Edge-]

No, they aren't saying anything, so those democrats that DID vote to veto aren't having 'buyer's remorse'... let that sink in.

Or...they're just not saying anything about it because most politicians would rather not have to deal with the topic. Because no matter what they say on it, they stand to get egg on their face. So keeping quiet is politically advantageous for most of them. And if they did talk about it and try to blame Obama for "not warning" them (like they should need that, don't they have staff to help them look into bills they vote on? Shouldn't most of them, who have legal training, be at least casually aware of the impact of passing such a law?), I'd say the exact same thing to those Democrats.

Also, remember, McConnel is the MAJORITY LEADER of the Senate, he's one of the top ranking Republicans in elected office. He speaks for the GOP in the Senate, not just for himself. So him saying something like this is both him saying it on behalf of himself, and GOP senators.

[Crissi]

No, they aren't saying anything, so those democrats that DID vote to veto aren't having 'buyer's remorse'... let that sink in.

you're really missing the point in your attempt to be partisan.

Its McConnal's fuck up. The Democrats being involved in his is irrelevant, considering the thread is ONLY about McConnal blaming Obama.

[Felya]

No, they aren't saying anything, so those democrats that DID vote to veto aren't having 'buyer's remorse'... let that sink in.

What about republicans outside Mitch McConnel? Why are you not complaining about the lack of grief they are getting?

[cubby]

No, they aren't saying anything, so those democrats that DID vote to veto aren't having 'buyer's remorse'... let that sink in. I think that if you are opposed to what 97 US Senators did then you should shade them ALL, not just the Leader.

You really don't understand the situation. Sit down before you hurt yourself.

McConnell leads the Senate. He orchestrated the original vote. Obama veto'd it and told him why bill bad. McConnell ignored advice, orchestrated the veto override vote. It succeeded. McConnell then realizes Obama was right. Blames Obama for not telling him bill was bad.

[Felya]

you're really missing the point in your attempt to be partisan.

Its McConnal's fuck up. The Democrats being involved in his is irrelevant, considering the thread is ONLY about McConnal blaming Obama.

He will start asking everyone to blame all republicans, just as he did with democrats any second... there will be a list naming them all and he will point out the 0 voting against it, just as he did with 1 for Ried... maybe he will toss praise at Harry Reid, who knows? Let's watch...

[cubby]

He will start asking everyone to blame all republicans, just as he did with democrats any second... there will be a list naming them all and he will point out the 0 voting against it, just as he did with 1 for Ried... maybe he will toss praise at Harry Reid, who knows? Let's watch...

/popcorn & soda

[Felya]

No, they aren't saying anything, so those democrats that DID vote to veto aren't having 'buyer's remorse'... let that sink in. I think that if you are opposed to what 97 US Senators did then you should shade them ALL, not just the Leader.

Buyers remorse from 1 republican versus the 1 democrat who didn't vote for it? Let that sink in... praise Harry Ried, I dare you...

[Seranthor]

So insulting folks that have a different view of a situation is accepted, right here in front of the moderators... Got it... Should I get infracted for going after one of you I'll be sure to hold this up... Keep on doing what your doing. Not walking away, going to laugh at the dishonesty and bias present.

[cubby]

Buyers remorse from 1 republican versus the 1 democrat who didn't vote for it? Let that sink in... praise Harry Ried, I dare you...

Easy there cowboy. Let's take this intervention one step at a time.

[Seranthor]

Buyers remorse from 1 republican versus the 1 democrat who didn't vote for it? Let that sink in... praise Harry Ried, I dare you...

Harry Reid can go fuck himself with that Rusty Chainsaw... I'll never praise Reid for anything.

[cubby]

So insulting folks that have a different view of a situation is accepted, right here in front of the moderators... Got it... Should I get infracted for going after one of you I'll be sure to hold this up... Keep on doing what your doing. Not walking away, going to laugh at the dishonesty and bias present.

No one is insulting you. We're trying to point out your rather blatant logical inconsistencies, and at the same time point out the actual issue at hand, rather than the fake ones you're constructing.

[Synadrasa]

The bigger question is if there are countries/entities that are responsible for 9/11 why should we care if our relationships with them are damage because we hold them responsible?

[cubby]

The bigger question is if there are countries/entities that are responsible for 9/11 why should we care if our relationships with them are damage because we hold them responsible?

Good question. Obama wrote about it in his veto "reasoning" message:

In vetoing the bill, however, Obama laid out three concrete reasons he thought the legislation was a potential liability.

The first, Obama wrote, is that the bill would allow private litigation in US courts against countries that have not been designated state sponsors of terrorism. As such, it would undermine terrorism investigations by taking them "out of the hands of national security and foreign policy professionals and placing them in the hands of private litigants and courts."

"This would invite consequential decisions to be made based upon incomplete information," the president wrote.

Secondly, passage of the lawsuit bill "would upset longstanding international principles regarding sovereign immunity, putting in place rules that, if applied globally, could have serious implications for US national interests," the veto message reads.

That is because the ad-hoc removal of sovereign immunity in US courts for foreign governments without first designating them state sponsors of terrorism opens the door for other nations to act reciprocally.

"Enactment of JASTA could encourage foreign governments to act reciprocally and allow their domestic courts to exercise jurisdiction over the United States or US officials — including our men and women in uniform," Obama wrote.

Lastly, the bill "threatens to create complications in our relationships with even our closest partners," he wrote. Obama noted that exposing the US's foreign partners to this kind of private litigation, without the involvement of national security professionals, could make them reluctant to cooperate on "key national security issues, including counterterrorism initiatives, at a crucial time when we are trying to build coalitions, not create divisions."

Obama ended the veto message by reinforcing the extent to which he has "expanded upon" the Bush administration's efforts to compensate victims' families and enact national security programs to protect Americans from terrorism in the wake of the 2001 attacks.

"I have continued and expanded upon these efforts, both to help victims of terrorism gain justice for the loss and suffering of their loved ones and to protect the United States from future attacks," Obama wrote. "The JASTA, however, does not contribute to these goals, does not enhance the safety of Americans from terrorist attacks, and undermines core US interests."

[Venant]

...what? How on earth do you connect allowing other countries citizens to sue the US government to them no longer joining terrorist groups? Do you think that anyone who is inclined to join ISIS would be interested in suing the US government? That they'd be happy with whatever the results of said lawsuit would be, or something?

I said that without the ability to seek recourse in the courts, there really isn't much recourse for many people besides becoming jihadists. And furthermore, I know it sounds like an insanely novel idea, but maybe the US shouldn't be bombing countries it isn't at war with?

Or perhaps the United States shouldn't be funding terrorism? You know like when we back groups in Syria that behead 9 year old boys, it sounds crazy but maybe we shouldn't do that.

[Bathory]

Blame obama? Sounds about right. That's pretty much what McConnell does