Human Action, you are suggesting the president’s war powers are checked by congress. If a president unilaterally enters into an agreement with NATO or the UN he is not being checked by congress. So to claim Serbia or Libya are not examples of unlimited executive power is a stretch.
Oh i was under the impression two wrongs do not make a right.
Which statement in the OP do you consider erroneous, the Alzheimer’s one?
Well, the 1995 bombing was done under the auspices of Resolution 836, and UN forces participated via artillery strikes.
The 1999 bombings were not, so if that’s what you were referring to, then I cheerfully withdraw my remark.
Your six degrees of Kevin Bacon does not an “affiliation” make.
What I wrote was that “the President really can’t do much damage on their own in our system.” Acting through the UN or NATO isn’t “on [his] own”, and Congress could always pull the U.S. out of the UN or NATO through legislation.
The phrase “declaration of war” is not defined either in the Constitution or in US law. As far as the Constitution is concerned, an act of Congress giving the president authority to deploy military assets against an enemy force is perfectly on the up-and-up regardless of what you call it.
This is really turning into a hijack, but let me just say that “in our system” that is absolutely acting on his own since neither of those bodies is intrinsic to “our system”.
AlQueda was born of an extreme anti-Shia sect of Islam, Hezbollah is aligned with Shia, hence, their connection to Iran. In this case, the enemy of our enemy is not our friend, nor even less our enemy.
At my best estimation, Syria is spinning out of control into sectarian horror, and the antipathy of all sides towards us render us moot, there is little if anything we can do to help, much we can do to harm.
If anyone has a plan that America could put into action that would lessen the bloodshed and misery, let him come forth soonest. I see no reason at all to believe that John McCain is that man.
An unplanned hijack, I assure you. While those bodies are not intrinsic to our system, our membership in them is, via the United Nations Participation Act of 1945, and the ratification of the North Atlantic Treaty in 1949, both of which are subject to repeal if Congress believes the President is using them as an end-run around the limits of his power. This makes the UN and NATO part of our system, in effect, albeit indirectly.
He also used to make sense most of the time. Predicting destabilization of Lebanon is like predicting that winter will have snow.
I think that somewhat ignores the context here. The dispute between McCain and Obama is whether to give arms to the FSA, the group with whom McCain is meeting. And the main reason they have this dispute is because the FSA is in the same anti-Assad coalition as Al-Nusra. So while Obama’s policy involves “dealing with” the same group McCain is meeting with, McCain is advocating that we arm that group and Obama is advocating that we not arm them because it might help Al Qaeda affiliates.
McCain has been undercutting Obama on foreign policy for a long time, and he was doing it to Bush before him. It’s just what he does as a Maverick ™.
Well said. In my mind’s eye, I can call up an image of a photograph of Dana Rohrabacher sitting in a cave with Taliban-related mujahideen.
I think they were making s’mores, but the photo was taken a LONG time ago. I might have mentally inserted that interpretation on my own.
Point is, I never want to see anything similar starring Maverick-Boy.
Just had to post thisfrom America’s finest news source.
Well, that’s not just a dispute between Obama and McCain, but just to be clear:
MacCain hasn’t given anyone any arms, and he’s just talking to the same people that Obama is talking to. I was addressing the inaccuracy in the OP, not making a judgement about who should be giving whom what. My own preference would be to stay out of it and not give arms to anyone.
Of course. (McCain got somewhat nearer actual danger than most such trips do, but not so much as to stand out in any long view.)
It should go without saying that all such excursions are, at least in part, “politicking.” All public acts of politicians are that.
McCain is not himself delivering arms, we assume. But it is an equally reasonable assumption that he’s meeting with the group in an effort to further his own policy beliefs–namely, that we ought to arm the group–by lending more exposure and credibility to their leader and giving McCain the ability to say he’s looked them in the eye or whatever he’s going to come back and say on the Sunday shows. In this sense, both in the purpose of the trip and its effect, his “dealing with” the FSA is materially different from Obama’s dealing. Thus, to the extent that the FSA can be fairly criticized for being too close to Al-Nusra (an Al Qaeda affiliate), McCain can be fairly criticized for cozying up to them in a way Obama has not.
Sarah drove him nuts.
He’s a Senator. He’s supposed to be furthering his policy beliefs. Leaving aside the content of those beliefs, which anyone is of course free to disagree with and oppose, what precisely is the objection to his methods?
For one thing, what the hell do we do if somebody takes him hostage?