Are you proposing that we are working on evening the scales? Wouldn’t it be better to propose that we no longer intervene in civil wars?
Wouldn’t be a shocker. Like any other president he lies about all sorts of things, all the time, for his own inscrutable reasons.
Neo-cons are not the first American policy makers to show an interest in Middle East hegemony, or anywhere else for that matter. American planners, Congressmen, presidents, journalists, and dog catchers have been obsessed with it since WWII, if not earlier. But you knew that.
It doesn’t.
But my position is that the War Powers’ Act, to the extent that it restricts the President’s exercise of his Art. II powers as C-in-C, is unconstitutional.
I don’t know.
But This does not mean that Obama doesn’t know. It merely means that the President has failed to invite me to the Oval Office to share his planning sessions – an oversight, to be sure.
You show yourself as a pussy. A dishonest, reprehensible one, no less. And a goddamn stupid one, to boot. Explaining something isn’t even remotely the same as being an apologist for it. But you don’t give a shit. You’re just hell-bent on spewing your self-righteous, vitriolic anger, regardless of the facts, and regardless of how people attempt to engage you. You are no longer deserving of even a modicum of respect. In fact, you have earned my contempt. Not that you care, I’m sure. But there it is.
So, you think a president should just ignore any act of Congress the he thinks is unconstitutional. Are you sure you want to go down that path? I think the proper way to approach this is that acts of Congress are consider constitutional until and unless the SCOTUS declares them not so. Otherwise, we are not a nation of laws.
The president should be able to articulate to the American people what our goals are and what, exactly, we are trying to accomplish when he takes military action. He doesn’t need to invite you, personally, into the Oval Office in order to do that.
I see what you did there.
He did. I heard him. If he sticks to what he said, I’m OK with it. If he tries to pull some shit, like suddenly we need a couple of armored divisions to protect our embassy, or an airfield, I will be totally pissed. But I figure I oughta at least wait for the crime to be commited before I start writing the indictment. Your way saves time, sure, but still…
*Barack Obama: "Now, here is why this matters to us. Left unchecked, we have every reason to believe that Qaddafi would commit atrocities against his people. Many thousands could die. A humanitarian crisis would ensue. The entire region could be destabilized, endangering many of our allies and partners. The calls of the Libyan people for help would go unanswered. The democratic values that we stand for would be overrun. Moreover, the words of the international community would be rendered hollow.
"And that’s why the United States has worked with our allies and partners to shape a strong international response at the United Nations. Our focus has been clear: protecting innocent civilians within Libya, and holding the Qaddafi regime accountable. *
http://blogs.state.gov/index.php/site/entry/2011_0318_potus_libya/ I’m not sure what you consider vague about this. I think he articulated our goals quit succinctly. We are participating to ensure the safety of innocent civilians from Moammar Qaddafi, and to ensure the region does not become destabilized and endanger our allies and partners due to Qaddafi’s actions.
So once Qaddafi has been rendered powerless to “show no mercy and no pity” to his citizens, Job Done. If the citizenry breaks out into a civil war between themselves after that, well, we’ll have to discuss next steps, then. But this mission is quite clear.
Well, you sure went quickly from “I don’t know” to suddenly you do know. But maybe you read some more. Still, basically you are saying there is no plan beyond tomorrow. That’s not how to use military action. That’s what Bush would do. That’s going in blind and hoping for the best. That’s exactly how we get drawn into quagmires like Vietnam and Iraq.
Still, I’d like you to address the issue of ignoring a law because you think it’s unconstitutional. How does that work as a general principal? We all get to decide which laws the president can ignore or is it only you who can do that?
Well, what’s the plan, John? He’s lying, ok, he’s lying. To what end? I don’t see what he has to gain by this, but if you do, why don’t you tell us?
OK I can sort of accept that, and I do believe you will switch sides if this escalates. But let’s be clear about one thing: the crime (violating the War Powers Act) has already been committed. The Rubicon has been crossed. You may excuse him for doing that, but I don’t.
The air strikes may be achieving only a mixed amount of success. The Washington Post is reporting as follows:
[QUOTE=Washington Post]
Four days of allied strikes have battered Libyan leader Moammar Gaddafi’s air force and largely destroyed his long-range air defense systems, a top U.S. commander said Tuesday. But there was little evidence that the attacks had stopped regime forces from killing civilians or shifted the balance of power in favor of the rebels.
[/QUOTE]
(Note: That URL leads to a story that looks like it has been evolving over the course of the day, so it may keep changing or may become a bad link).
I mean, even when the guy says it right out, clear, and in words of one syllable…
“I’m going to build a treehouse in the back, and paint it blue.”
Three days later…
“…Well, Greta, the President promised to build a geodesic dome over the White House grounds, but many Americans are deeply disappointed to learn that he is just putzing around in a tree with some boards…”
What is this, a dick-waving contest?
Well, since I don’t have a dick, I’ll wave this guy’s:
JURIST Contributing Editor Michael J. Kelly, Professor of Law and Associate Dean for Faculty Research and International Programs at Creighton University School of Law says that, for now, President Obama has the legal authority to commit U.S. military forces to establish the no-fly zone over Libya…
The President Does Not Need Congressional Approval for Libya No-Fly Zone (Yet)
. . .
"Under the WPR, the President may commit U.S. forces into armed hostilities, but must advise Congress within 48 hours that he has done so. This report must explain the circumstances necessitating the deployment, the legal authority he is relying on, and the estimated scope and duration of hostilities. A 60-day clock then begins ticking, at the end of which the president must terminate his military action unless (1) Congress has specifically authorized it, (2) Congress has extended the 60 days, or (3) Congress is physically unable to meet due to an attack on the U.S. But the President may extend the 60 days by another 30 days if he certifies to Congress that he cannot safely remove U.S. forces from combat without that additional time.
“**Thus, an American president operating under the WPR, basically has 92 days total to get his military business done abroad without specific Congressional authorization. **That said, Congress reserves the right to itself to pull the plug on any executive military adventures by concurrent resolution at any time. However, no Congress has never done this and it is unlikely that any would. President Reagan duly reported his engagement with Libya to Congress. Likewise, President Obama duly reported his own engagement with Libya to Congress.”
. . .
There you go.
You know, I’d like to address this allegation, as well. Will you please point out for me, where I ever said I didn’t know why we were engaging in military action in Libya. You seem to be flinging another insult at me here and I’d like to know from whence that allegation came.
You’ve made 30 posts in this thread ‘explaining’ and defending and supporting Obama’s action. Judging from this post, I think the strain of being an apologist for something you–in your heart–know is wrong must be getting to you.
Next: The halls of Montezuma! Buckle up, Mexico.
But nothing based on common humanity, or on furthering the goals of democracy that are the foundation of our own system and our own rhetoric and our own history, mixed as it is with actions counter to it. But let’s just stick with our being human; that’s enough here. You might also claim, as other posters have inferred, that yes, this is a civil war - that would fit your ad hoc list of reasons, wouldn’t it?
What you stated is your own opinion about what our business should not be, based on defining this action as being not it, and presenting it as an obvious fact. You can be just a little more intellectually honest than that, can’t you? There’s a good lad.
Now get a fucking grip, buddy.
Well, it’s only the first phase. Much more likely than not, once anti air emplacements are knocked out and we rule the skies, we can send in aircraft on ground attack missions and start dealing with Quadaffi’s armor columns.
That’s certainly the presumption that a citizen faces when challenging an act of Congress.
But the President is an independent Constitutional actor. Consider the famous Tenure in Office Act, where Andrew Johnson was prohibited by Congress from firing his cabinet officers, under the theory that since their appointment was via Congress’ advice and consent, their removal must require the same advice and consent. President Johnson rightly regarded this as an unconstitutional encroachment on his Art II powers, and fired Secretary of War Staunton. Congress impeached him for violating the Act, but failed to convict him in the Senate. The Supreme Court later ruled the Tenure in Office Act unconstitutional.
Note also that because of the “case or controversy” requirement of Art III, the federal courts may not render advisory opinions. If, in other words, a President believes a law to be unconstitutional, he may not simply ask the courts to decide that question in the abstract. There must be a actual case which violates the law in order for the courts to weigh in on the issue.