I ask for an explanation of the outrage in the original OPs thread:
[ul]
[li]Are you complaining about an alleged abuse of power? The Constitution grants the delegated authority to commit the military.[/li][li]Are you concerned the president is adding another new military campaign, and commitment, of this country’s military? If so, fair comment.[/li][li]When will it end? Is this rhetorical, considering every US president has the delegated authority?[/li][li]Do you just hate the current officeholder?[/li][/ul]
[li]Are you complaining about an alleged abuse of power? The Constitution grants the delegated authority to commit the military.[/li][li]Are you concerned the president is adding another new military campaign, and commitment, of this country’s military? If so, fair comment.[/li][li]When will it end? Is this rhetorical, considering every US president has the delegated authority?[/li][li]Do you just hate the current officeholder?[/li][/QUOTE]
Can’t speak for him, however.
Much like the Libya mess, this amounts to putting American troops out without a declaration of war, which the President cannot do indefinitely (he has a limited time, basically*). Obama’s action in Libya was clearly unconstitutional.
*Fortunately this can’t really too far wrong. The Lord’s Army isn’t exactly a top-flight organization. I don’t think we have any interest in the matter and don’t see why we’re involved, which was much my problem with Libya. There, however, I felt we had an actual interst in NOT getting involved, whereas this is acompletely neutral issue. Also, the Lord’s Army is basically controlled by complete bastards, so… meh.
*No, I think he’s unsuited for any executive position. I actually think he’d make a fine Secretary of State, and probably be a lot happier, too. I’d be so happy if Hillary were were President and the Big O SecState.
**This is a complicated legal issue I don’t want to get into. SHort version: Congress permits Presidents a little leeway with a law of dubious legality. Presidents previously have never publicaly accepted the law, but were always careful to stay within its bounds.
I do have to wonder what sort of response this board would have had if it was Bush who, by fiat, decided to land 100 ‘advisers’ into Africa on a military adventure. I’m guessing it would be, er, a bit different than what we are seeing here…
I can’t say I have exhaustively researched the matter, but my gut feeling is that Bush sending 100 advisors into Africa on a military adventure wouldn’t even crack the top 100 stupidest things he did in office.
Nope, but the outrage quotient would be a lot higher. I say that as someone who would have been outraged if Bush had done this without any sort of congressional approval or even vote, and someone who, hypocritically, is NOT outraged that Obama has done the same thing. But I see the dual standard in myself over this…it comes down to trust, and I trust Obama a hell of a lot more than I did Bush.
Assuming the original OP (who, based on a quick look at their past posting history, probably feels exactly opposite to what I’m saying above) doesn’t wander in here, what’s the debate?
Heh. Except, you know, Bush did this. Multiple times. And that’s just the times reported to Congress, which doesn’t include things like sending military personnel to Poland secretly for anti-terrorist operations, which we know he did. He sent troops to Cote d’Ivoire, Liberia, and Mauritania. In fact, in 2003, he sent 4,350 U.S. combat troops to Liberia to restore order.
It would be higher, but I doubt by much. 100 troops just isn’t a lot to get excited about. Only the most strident of Bush haters (and we know who they are) would work a sweat over that.
It seems like it passed in May 20120, not 2011 as the article implies. You can read the legislation (Lord’s Resistance Army Disarmament & Northern Uganda Recovery Act) in question here. The legislation contains:
I’m having trouble seeing where Obama went off the rails on this one.
[li]Are you complaining about an alleged abuse of power? The Constitution grants the delegated authority to commit the military.[/li]
Yes.
[li]Are you concerned the president is adding another new military campaign, and commitment, of this country’s military? If so, fair comment.[/li]
Yes. Thank you.
[li]When will it end? Is this rhetorical, considering every US president has the delegated authority?[/li]
As you quoted the president is in charge of the armed forces WHEN it is called into service. I think the war powers act gives leeway if an attack is imminent. In this case ot appears it is not.
[li]Do you just hate the current officeholder?[/li]
Hate is a strong word considering I voted for him as a reaction to the unabated militarism of the preceding administration. I feel he has been an abject failure but no worse than several other presidents.
Because Bush is an idiot and a monster, and there’s zero chance the purpose would be well meaning and not much more chance that it would be anything but a disaster with him even remotely involved. Outside of not running in the first place, the best thing Bush could have done as President is remained unspeaking at his desk the whole time avoiding sudden movements & sharp objects. And avoiding solid food; remember the pretzel incident? Solid food is way too challenging for this guy; best stick to mush.
We’re foot-slog-slog-slog-sloggin’ over Africa -
Foot-foot-foot-foot-sloggin’ over Africa -
(Boots-boots-boots-boots-movin’ up an’ down again!)
There’s no discharge in the war!
None of which generated even a blip on the radar of public opinion. The only real news story here is why some people even give a damn about a president doing something that every prior president in history did many times.
I’m guessing it would be, er, a bit different than what we are seeing here…