March 20, 2011

"‎The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation."

Said Senator Barack Obama, Dec. 20, 2007.

155 comments:

Attila Girl said...

Well . . . oops.

chickelit said...

Sarah Palin will clean his clock over this if she has enough Robert Taft in her.

Maguro said...

Let's just say that Barry's views have "evolved".

rhhardin said...

Obviously the President does have that power.

AJ Lynch said...

Obama is like 0-10 when it comes to being right about anything he said before he was elected.

I think the odds are 1,024 to 1 that you fip a coin ten times and get the same result every time. Obama should have gone to Vegas and, like George Costanza did in a Seinfeld episode, done the opposite.

john lichtenstein said...

It's alarming that BHO made no effort to get Congress to authorize this use of force.

john lichtenstein said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Lincolntf said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Methadras said...

Erkle-in-Chief strikes again.

Oh, did I do that?

Phil 3:14 said...

When was the last admin that didnt have to fight the "War Powers" fight. I'd love to say there's a principled debate in here but it always seems to end up as partisan gamesmanship

Ut said...

"Unlike my opponent (Hillary Clinton), I oppose an individual mandate. If a mandate was the solution, we could solve homelessness by mandating everybody buy a house." - said Barack Obama

"As President, I will close Guantanamo, reject the Military Commissions Act and adhere to the Geneva Conventions. Our Constitution and our Uniform Code of Military Justice provide a framework for dealing with the terrorists." - said Barack Obama

"Too often bills are rushed through Congress and to the president before the public has the opportunity to review them. As president, I will not sign any non-emergency bill without giving the American public an opportunity to review and comment on the White House website for five days." - said Barack Obama

"I am in this race to tell the corporate lobbyists that their days of setting the agenda in Washington are over. I have done more than any other candidate in this race to take on lobbyists — and won. They have not funded my campaign, they will not run my White House, and they will not drown out the voices of the American people when I am president." - said Barack Obama

Look, I could go on and on (and I'm sure I'll get the chance soon).

Barack Obama said a lot of shit in order to fool people (such as Althouse) into voting for him. If you voted for him believing that he would do what he said he would do then you're just a buffoon.

Smart people KNEW he was lying.

Smart people SAID he was lying.

Smart people refused to vote for him.

His goal was to tell each audience what they wanted to hear, whether it was true or not. And some really smart people pointed that out at the time.

Barack Obama is a liar. Always has been. Everything he says is a lie ... including "and" and "the."

Are you going to be fooled twice?

Freeman Hunt said...

The Constitution is a living thing, see? And all proper living things show deference to Obama.

G Joubert said...

Oh how quickly the Philistines turn.

AllenS said...

I think that obama has went through life not having any answer he gave, challenged. He has been affirmative actioned upwards all through life. Who can blame him for saying all of this nonsense? For a long time, it's worked out ok for him.

AJ Lynch said...

UT:

I don't agree with you. Obama believed what he said- he wasn't lying. He was simply uninformed, lacked basic knowledge and that means he was unable to be a practical thinker.

madawaskan said...

Except for during the Bush Administration the Left took Bush to court and the damn issue in that case was-

SETTLED.

First Circuit Court of Appeals

Doe v. Bush

enicar333 said...

It's all about the oil. Libyan Light Sweet Crude is a becoming a rare commodity. It's loss from the market is seriously affecting Europe, especially Italy. Italy is one of the PIIGS. If Italy goes, the debts it owes to French and German banks goes. This is to save the Euro. Obama doesn't have a choice. He is doing what he was told.

madawaskan said...

Here is a list of the named plaintiffs, and appellants in that case:

Doe v. Bush

****
SUSAN E. SCHUMANN, CHARLES RICHARDSON, NANCY LESSIN, JEFFREY
MCKENZIE, JOHN CONYERS, DENNIS KUCINICH, JESSE JACKSON, JR.,
SHEILA JACKSON LEE, JIM MCDERMOTT, JOSÉ E. SERRANO, SALLY WRIGHT,
DEBORAH REGAL, ALICE COPELAND BROWN, JERRYE BARRE, JAMES STEPHEN
CLEGHORN, LAURA JOHNSON MANIS, SHIRLEY H. YOUNG, JULIAN
DELGAUDIO, ROSE DELGAUDIO, DANNY K. DAVIS, MAURICE D. HINCHEYCAROLYN KILPATRICK, PETE STARK, DIANE WATSON, LYNN C. WOOLSEY.

******

Sorry for the all caps but that is the way thy appear in the document.

Freeman Hunt said...

But then, who didn't already know that all that carping about Iraq was bullshit?

Dust Bunny Queen said...

I don't agree with you. Obama believed what he said- he wasn't lying. He was simply uninformed, lacked basic knowledge and that means he was unable to be a practical thinker.

So, you think it is better that Obama is an ignorant dope who can't string two coherent thoughts together, instead of being a serial lair?

Obama is a liar and a very skillful one. AND I told you so

Robert Cook said...

His actions (heretofore and) here prove what I've said here all along...Obama is just George Bush in smoother garb.

rhharding said:

"Obviously the President does have that power."

Legally and constitutionally, he does not. However, if the Congress will not challenge him, then he can act as he wishes, as any usurper of power not rightly his will do.

enicar333 said...

Here are some of the people Obama is with in Brazil:

Jeffrey R. Immelt - CEO, General Electric

Aris Candris - CEO, Westinghouse

James T. Hackett - CEO, Anadarko Petroleum Co.

John V. Faraci - CEO, International Paper

Anthony S. Harrington - CEO, Albright Stonebridge Corp.

(SHHH... don't tell the protestors, they are fighting evil Corporations...LOL)

http://www.michaelsavage.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=48881

Doug Wright said...

Just a couple of quotes from someone on Obama's side of the divide: "Words just words!" "Those were just campaign words, unimportant!" Well, actually, this last one might be a paraphrase of one of Obama's key supporters, some Congess Babe!

Can President Palin use Obama's justification when she has to missile some Palestine rogues during her second term?

Jay said...

So is Obama a chickenhawk or war criminal?

Birkel said...

madawaskan:

So what you're saying is a 2003 court case settled the matter? And Obama in 2007 was arguing that the matter was not settled?

I'm left to conclude one of two things:
1) Obama is an idiot unable to read a court opinion; or
2) Obama is a liar who wished to fool the rubes.

Trooper York said...

What part of the fact that he is a lying sack of shit that you can't understand?

It's what he does.

madAsHell said...

Imagine being 49 years old, and discovering that all your convictions are conflicted.

Imagine being President, and discovering all your 733t community organizer skills are irrelevant.

Handing hundred dollar bills to disgruntled grammas in Chicago is not a relevant work experience.

madawaskan said...

Here is a significant passage from the decision Doe v. Bush:

An extreme case might arise, for example, if Congress gave absolute discretion to the President to start a war at his or her will... Plaintiffs' objection to the October Resolution does not, of course, involve any such claim. Nor does it involve a situation where the President acts without any apparent congressional authorization, or against congressional opposition...

To the contrary, Congress has been deeply involved in significant debate, activity, and authorization connected to our relations with Iraq for over a decade, under three different presidents of both major political parties, and during periods when each party has controlled Congress.



First Circuit Court of Appeals.
*****

Robert Cook said...

"But then, who didn't already know that all that carping about Iraq was bullshit?"

Um,no. Obama's actions today do not retroactively remove our invasion of Iraq from the category of war crime. It just confirms what I've also said here before: Obama has eagerly joined the fraternity of American war criminals. (He had already done so before now.)

According to UT, I'm a smart people. I didn't vote for Obama. I didn't expect him to be so grandly awful as he has been, so I may have had some vestiges of naivete about him, but I knew he would not stand up for the things he professed to believe in...and he hasn't. He has, however, stood up--or stood by--for the things George Bush believed in...revealing that he also believes in them.

Mark said...

Yeah, but what about the Secretary of State? After all, it seems like she's calling the shots....

wv: "sting" -- I kid you not.

Jay said...

Each Tomahawk missile costs $600,000, bringing the initial costs of the strikes to approximately $71 million.

Why are we borrowing from China to pay for Obama's illegal war for oil?

Mick said...

This particular putative POTUS is Usurping the office (he is not a natural born Citizen, since his father was Kenyan, and gave Obama British Citizenship at birth), and NONE of the power he thinks he has is legitimate, including the 2 Communist SCOTUS appointments.
He could very well be a British Subject to this day, and our Military is taking Illegal orders.

Robert Cook said...

"So is Obama a chickenhawk or war criminal?"

Yes.

Jay said...

do not retroactively remove our invasion of Iraq from the category of war crime

Hysterical.

We have one kool aid drinker in the house!

madawaskan said...

Basically Obama said that in 2007.

The First Circuit Court of Appeals decision was written when?

2008?

2007?

2005?

Try:

2003.

****

You'd think since one of the biggest things on Obama's resume is the Constitutional law professorship that he would have read it...

traditionalguy said...

But it is well known that Obama is an innocent man with pure motives, and therefore he is doing the best things for world UN Governance . He is therefore totally unlike that Evil Bush-Hitler who did the same thing after he had tricked Congress into authorizing it. If you don't believe me, ask NPR News.

kent said...

"Kucinich, who wanted to bring impeachment articles against both former President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney over Iraq — only to be blocked by his own leadership — asked why [Obama's] U.S. missile strikes aren’t impeachable offenses."

Neo-con Kucinich! KOCHTOPUS PAWWWWWWWNNNNNNN -- !!!

kent said...

Link for above: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0311/51595.html

madawaskan said...

Birkel

I'm left to conclude one of two things:
1) Obama is an idiot unable to read a court opinion; or
2) Obama is a liar who wished to fool the rubes.


Or "C" a disinterested Constitutional law prof. who....I can't do it...

I give up.

madAsHell said...

Obama spent the first 2 years of his administration blaming George Bush.

Obama will spend the last 2 years doing things the way Bush did it.

The Obama Doctrine: "Well, Bush did it first..."

AllenS said...

Each Tomahawk missile costs $600,000, bringing the initial costs of the strikes to approximately $71 million

That was the first nights bombardment. It is now night time in Libya, and the second round of bombing is taking place.

By the way, where is garage and fls and Alpha Liberal?

Robert Cook said...

"Neo-con Kucinich! KOCHTOPUS PAWWWWWWWNNNNNNN -- !!!"

Uh, no...Kucinich is just being consistent. Bush, Cheney, et al. were criminals and murderers, and so, also, is Obama.

Obama's actions here are perfectly in keeping with what the Kochs of American want. Obama is a servant of the Kochs, (and their ilk), as have been his predecessors going back decades.

enicar333 said...

The turmoil in the Middle East has caused the price of oil to rise. $100/B of oil is considered a threat to the economy. Hillary Clinton has stated that the U.S. deficit is an issue of national security - so YES, it makes sense Obama would attack.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/02/25/usa-deficit-clinton-idUSN2511749320100225

Michael K said...

"He has, however, stood up--or stood by--for the things George Bush believed in...revealing that he also believes in them."

They call that the truth and those things that are so inconvenient, facts. Obama has learned that, no matter his left wing impractical yearnings, some things are just true.

How many remember Bill Clinton's plaintive comment from 1993 that, if reincarnation existed, he wanted to come back as the Bond Market as it was all powerful. This was from his first tutorial by Bob Rubin who told him that his leftist delusions were just that.

There are things that could be done to downsize banks that are too big and to cut the strings that tie the White House and the big banks together, but they will not come from the professional political class. Look at the monstrosity produced by Dodd and Frank. This is a cabal and the only people who can break it up are outsiders like Sarah Palin or Herman Cain or even Scott Walker.

If you haven't read Angelo Codevilla's essay, maybe this is a good time.

Maguro said...

I don't know about the others, but garage is simultaneously against Obama's bombing of Libya and outraged that the wingnut-American community doesn't support it 100%.

edutcher said...

The President doesn't have the power to declare war without Congress.

He can, however, order military action unilaterally against any nation he wishes. Anyone who thinks otherwise should talk to the Indians.

Not taking his part, just saying.

Once again, the Gospel According to El Rushbo, "Everything Barack Obama says has an expiration date".

Birkel said...
madawaskan:

So what you're saying is a 2003 court case settled the matter? And Obama in 2007 was arguing that the matter was not settled?

I'm left to conclude one of two things:
1) Obama is an idiot unable to read a court opinion; or
2) Obama is a liar who wished to fool the rubes.


You say that as if the two are mutually exclusive.

PS Anybody know our objective in this one? In A-stan, it was go after the Taliban. In Iraq, it was Saddam. This time, it's a little less clear.

According to the Hildabeast - and The Zero, it's a no-fly zone.

According to the Pentagon, it's protecting Libyans, which means taking out tanks (the coastal roads are starting to look like the eastbound out of Alamein).

This is starting to feel like Somalia.

kent said...

Obama is a servant of the Kochs, (and their ilk), as have been his predecessors going back decades.

The Shankman is strong in this one.

madawaskan said...

Basically I think this says one thing:

Obama thinks his base is [............].

And he could be right!

Ut said...

"He was simply uninformed, lacked basic knowledge and that means he was unable to be a practical thinker."

He had tons of polling. On all of these issues, his polling indicated that if he took the position he took, he'd get elected.

So, he took those positions.

Obama's goal was not to close down Guantanmo, or defeat the idea of the individual mandate, or beat back the lobbyists or create a transparent government.

His goal was to be President and get on ESPN with his brackets.

Obama ONLY cares about being President (the trappings and the wealth and the prestige of being on ESPN whenever he wants to be). He doesn't care about anything else. He doesn't have any position on any issue that he can't advocate for both ways depending on the calculus of the moment.

He knows that in 2012, the media will explain why he had to take the positions he had to take. That he was forced to, really, by a changing and dynamic world. That he's a man who is capable of evolving in the face of new information or new threats.

And the same assholes that elected this douchebag will vote for him again.

Freeman Hunt said...

Or course he says different things about it at different times.

The Constitution is like 100 years old or something!

"Four score and seven years ago our Creator endowed us with unalienable rights in order to form a more perfect Union..." Crazy old-speak! Who can read it?!

Ut said...

"Obama is just George Bush in smoother garb."

Or, as I like to say: Barack Obama is the nation's first black Bush.

kent said...

By the way, where is garage and fls and Alpha Liberal?

NOT busily crafting giant papier-mache Obama "protest" heads.

NOT marching in any anti-war demonstration, protesting the White House's aggressive "bombing and killing of brown people."

NOT out in the streets, pumping their fists in the air while angrily chanting "NOT IN MY NAME!" or "NO BLOOD FOR OIL!" or "THE WORLD CAN'T WAIT!"

Chip Ahoy said...

that was then and this is now, so just shut up.

Ut said...

"So is Obama a chickenhawk or war criminal?"

Yes.

Jay said...

PS Anybody know our objective in this one?

Great question.

I have some others:
Is the U.S. military going to stick around 24/7/365 to keep Tripoli from whacking the opposition when no one is looking?

Do we attack from the air targets on the ground, given that Qaddafi’s ongoing strategy likely will be to use tanks and artillery, often at night and among civilian landscapes, to beat back the rebels?

Does the no-fly zone, in the fashion of its previous counterpart over Iraq, escalate to more offensive tactics, such as taking out depots or armor concentrations, given that we have raised the ante and don’t want our newfound allies to lose with their advantages of Western air cover?

Who exactly are the rebels? And what are their aims, methods, and ideology?

kent said...

Barack Obama's Unfinished Bracket

Heh.

Cedarford said...

Phil 3:14 said...
When was the last admin that didnt have to fight the "War Powers" fight. I'd love to say there's a principled debate in here but it always seems to end up as partisan gamesmanship

==================
It seems that way, there is no real debate of conscience about this in the 8 Administrations or their foes since 1973 - only cynical gamesmanship.
The Constitution is badly flawed with poor language on delegation of war powers, but the 1973 Act is also flawed in thinking a leisurely debate in the Open that occurs after a President openly wants to commit to military action is optimal. A President may wish to avoid war, never start an "authorization" debate but then has to act when events change and sudden action is needed (Panama, Grenada, the 1st Gulf War).

I think that the thing that makes sense is that the President commits only after getting a run-by after meeting with Congressional Leadership (the top 4 in Senate and House) that reach a consensus on what limits apply to action and when continuing military intervention must come to an authorization and funding vote.

Unless attacked, we cannot afford it. These elective wars must be subject to the will of voters to decide if they are in our national interest - or simple expressions of ideologies the voters don't share (neocon adventures of Empire and keeping Israel happy, human rights activists, donors that stand to make billions off "nation-building projects)

Trooper York said...

Ut said...
"Obama is just George Bush in smoother garb."

Or, as I like to say: Barack Obama is the nation's first black Bush."

Well that's ok as long as you don't claim the he is the nation's best black bush.

That would be Pam Grier. Just Sayn'

Cedarford said...

Ut - "And the same assholes that elected this douchebag will vote for him again."

No, if Republicans launch another as bad as John McCain, Obama will win in spite of his lack of abilities.

=================

chickelit said...
Sarah Palin will clean his clock over this if she has enough Robert Taft in her.


Case in point. If the religious right base of the Republicans gives us Palin or a Fundie as the alternative candidate, Obama wins re-election.

(George Bush did not deserve reelection in 2004. But then the Democrats gave us John Forbes Kerry as the alternative. Four more years of Bush!)

Carol_Herman said...

Here's why I think Libya could work for Obama:

It's got a small population. Under the thumb of Ghaddafi, whose image is everywhere. And, who forces all Libyians into his "cult of personality." Everyone is terrified of the secret police.

Still, he's not like the other arab states. There's no Muslim Brotherhood. And, Ghaddafi has terrorized the imams in the mosques. Women are not reviled, however. Ghaddafi is "quite the feminist."

Now, IF Libya becomes an engine of reform, it has all the money in the world. Yet, Ghaddafi never invested a dime in infrastructure. There are NO schools. Absolutely NO middle class. Nowhere where people go to have coffee, together. Or bazaars. Or anything that would resemble a middle class!

This country is RIPE for success, like no other one in the Mideast!

Who would do the building? Not arabs. Chinese. Pakistanis. And, Indians. People from countries that are overpopulated.

Can you make the desert bloom?

You don't have to bury copper wiring to bring in telephones. It could bloom like China did. With cell phones. And, modern technology.

How? Oil wealth.

First, ya gotta find someone better than Ghaddafi. (And, I think we're also concerned with the Libyan oil fields being under threat.)

What about the Saud's? What about them? We just moved the 5th Fleet out of Bahrain. The saud's are the ones who got both Bush's to go into Irak. They're not happy with "that" outcome, ya know.

Why would Obama squander such an opportunity? The anti-war left? Did you know Obama won because McCain wasn't chosen by Independents! What's been scaring the democraps, since Nancy Pelosi's fiasco ... has been the peeling off of the independents.

I smell catnip, here.

bagoh20 said...

I'm gonna start building tomahawks in my garage. The market is taking off, and can you believe how much you get for them? By my calculations, I can use the highest quality hickory handles and still make a killing.

madawaskan said...

Let's get the audio for this:

The Fixx:One Thing Leads to Another

***

Cedarford said...

Trooper - Well that's ok as long as you don't claim the he is the nation's best black bush.

That would be Pam Grier. Just Sayn'


I just saw "Jackie Brown" again. Tarantino gave a great script, put Grier in a great role, and she delivered.

Phil 3:14 said...

I don't know about the others, but garage is simultaneously against Obama's bombing of Libya and outraged that the wingnut-American community doesn't support it 100%.

Call me naive but this is an opportunity for the "anti-war left" to set aside the rest of their "progressives" stances and start a dialogue with folks across the political spectrum regarding the wisdom of our military actions. Apart from the libertarians who tend to be less eager to respond militarily, I bet there are a lot of independants and Republicans who, after 8 years in Iraq and nearly 10 in Afghanistan, are pretty circumspect about launching missles and fighters, with or without international support.

I'm not saying I agree with them but if "anti-war" was at the core of their worldview then they'd pursue it regardless of party. But no, just like the pro-life movement they will find the allegiances to party stronger than their policy convictions.

Terrye said...

Oh well, that was then and this is now.

madawaskan said...

Screw that.

It's this:

You have to have a party
when you're in a state like this
you can really move it all

you have to vote and change

you have to get right out of it
like out of all this mess
you'll say yeah to anything
if you believe all this but
don't cry, don't do anything
no lies, back in the government
no tears, party time is here again
president gas is up for president
line up, put your kisses down
say yeah, say yes again
stand up, there's a head count
president gas on everything but roller skates

it's sick the price of medicine
stand up, we'll put you on your feet again


open up your eyes
just to check that your asleep again


president gas is president gas again
he comes in from the left sometimes
he comes in from the right
it's so heavily advertised that he wants you and I
it's a real cowboy set, electric company
every day is happy days
it's hell without the sin, but
don't cry, don't do anything
no lies, back in the government
no tears, party time is here again
president gas is up for president
line up, put your kisses down
say yeah, say yes again
stand up, there's a head count
president gas on everything but roller skates
it's sick the price of medicine
stand up, we'll put you on your feet again
open up your eyes just to check that your asleep again
president gas is president gas again
president gas
oh, president gas
whoa, president gas
oh, president gas
whoa, president gas
oh, president gas
whoa, president gas

waaaaaaaar.


The Psychedelic Furs: President Gas


*****

[wv:comic]

edutcher said...

Jay said...

PS Anybody know our objective in this one?

Great question.

Who exactly are the rebels? And what are their aims, methods, and ideology?


That's the one bothering me.

Don't Tread 2012 said...

@kent

Heh indeed on Zero's bracket...

@Jay

"Who exactly are the rebels? And what are their aims, methods, and ideology?"

$64,000 question. I trust the current wizards at Dept of State have vetted the 'other side'.

@Trooper

LOL first Black Bush.

Scott said...

Where's Jeremy?

Belkys said...

An afro-descendant brazilian think Obama is not enough black
http://www.noticias24.com/actualidad/noticia/222579/barack-obama-en-favela-cidade-de-deus-en-rio-¡pero-no-es-negro-fotos/

Don't Tread 2012 said...

@madawaskan

Re; President Gas

Forever Now is one of my fave 80's albums (yep still have my vinyl).

Todd Rundgren produced some of their stuff, I consider them an underrated 80's band.

madawaskan said...

Don't Tread 2012

I am jealous!

I have to get it on itunes.

Sister Europe is also one...just for the damn irony.

Don't Tread 2012 said...

@madawaskan

Yeah good play and great choice for the thread!

Chef Mojo said...

Jeremy? Alpha LIberal? Ritmo? FLS? Garage?

Come out and plaaaaay!

Belkys said...

According to the Hildabeast - and The Zero, it's a no-fly zone
And people that know about that said weeks ago that you have to do one of two things: destroy the whole aviation on the airfields like Israel did in 1966 or bomb until all the air defense are down like there were in Irak ( 1993)

kent said...

Jeremy? Alpha LIberal? Ritmo? FLS? Garage?

Don't forget our resident play-pretend "sixty-year-old Navy veteran!" ;)

Beldar said...

@ madawaskan: Confident lawyers, and even confident pundits, know they can de-cap an all-caps passage without facing any serious fraud charges.

ALL CAPS in legal pleadings are a throw-back to the days before word processors.

Carol_Herman said...

The "objectives" are securing the oil fields from Ghaddafi's threats to set them on fire.

And, then to "watch the desert bloom." To introduce TOURISM, without the kooky Ghaddafi owning everything.

Unlike other Mideast countries this one has been under the terror-leadership of a cult character. Who also kept the mosques from contaminating the populace.

Libya's got no Muslem Brotherhood, because the mosques were denied power.

Libya's a country without infrastructure. Can you imagine if you just brought in one university?

Oh, and out 5th Fleet has left Bahrain. The saud's thought we'd have no other place to go. So think: The coast of Libya being ripe for an American port, away from saudi influence.

Catnip, I tell ya. Catnip!

rhhardin said...

"Obviously the President does have that power."

Legally and constitutionally, he does not. However, if the Congress will not challenge him, then he can act as he wishes, as any usurper of power not rightly his will do.


Legally, that's not his branch of government. The Congress can impeach and remove if they don't like what he does, whatever constitutional argument they may choose to use.

Strategically, it's a good idea to leave it as the President can do what he wants subject to impeachment. Some things are best left undecided with an aim towards flexibility.

The voters get their chance to chime in at the next election on what has gone on, if the President or the Congress have done something egregious.

The President is above the law but not above being removed from office.

Carol_Herman said...

First of all, a majority of Americans are NOT anti-war! Only against FAILURES! Irak's a failure. Afghanistan's a failure. Which goes to decisions made by Bush.

Libya just might turn out to be an OPPORTUNITY!

Libya is TRIBAL. This means the Libyan's themselves are very sensitive to "outsiders." Yeah. I think the "rebels" have been outsiders. Opportunists who are now meeting defeat.

Can Obama stop the erosion that occurred when he began losing Independent voters?

Well? I smell catnip for a reason.

Seven Machos said...

Libya is TRIBAL.

Unlike Iraq and Afghanistan. Right, Carol?

For someone so short on knowledge, you are awful long on opinions.

Paco Wové said...

"Obama has eagerly joined the fraternity of American war criminals. (He had already done so before now.)"

Just curious... how was Obama already a war criminal? By not completely withdrawing from Iraq?

By the way, R.C., while I think you're completely wrong on this, I do admire your non-partisan consistency.

Carol_Herman said...

I remember the election of 1998!

Clinton remained in office. And, it was the Republican House Members who got defeated.

I guess if Republicans have no memories of this, then, sure. Let the House try and impeach Obama.

Stupid is as stupid does.

knox said...

It's depressingly clear that Obama says whatever sounds good at the time.

Nevertheless, I can't pretend know what should be done in this situation. The alternatives to Q might be even nuttier than he is. "Nuttier" meaning radically Islamic extremist.

Obama's opportunity to do great things in the Middle East was flushed when he turned his back on the Iranian protesters. That was really shitty. And there actually was potential for improvement there.

W: "Miss me yet?" Me: "Yes." At least foreign-policy-wise.

Cedarford said...

Carol Herman - "Oh, and out 5th Fleet has left Bahrain. The saud's thought we'd have no other place to go. So think: The coast of Libya being ripe for an American port, away from saudi influence."

I think you mess up on multiple levels.

1. The 5th Fleet hasn't moved out - they have put ships to sea so as not to give creddence to taking sides in the political clashes.

2. There is no value in putting the US Navy in Libya, 700 miles streaming distance from the Gulf and on the wrong side of the Suez Canal.

3. The US has naval basing rights in 7 other non-muslim countries in the Med that are solid allies of the US, not counting Israel which is unusable due to the world seeing it as a leper country.

4. The US has 3 Muslim lands it can base Naval forces at, not counting Tunisia and Turkey due to present sensitivities over the US involvement with Israel and past support of corrupt disctators...but we do have long relationships with Ankara and

Quaestor said...

Robert Cook wrote: According to UT, I'm a smart people.

UT has been known to exaggerate. RC cites a case in point.

Carol_Herman said...

Irak has 3 factions. Kurds. Shia. And, Sunni. The saud's pushed BOTH Bush's to take on Saddam. How has that worked out?

Libya, if you've ever seen Michael Totten's posts, is a country run by a madman. It has no infrastructure. No schools. No. Universities. No middle class. No place where people gathered. No place where people went to shop. NOTHING. Housing built by the soviets. Streets strewn with garbage. NO TOURISTS!

Also, because of the "Cult of Ghaddafi" ... the mosques never became hot beds of resistance, either.

Just different tribes, with leaders who got paid off by Ghaddafi.

All that oil wealth. Used by Ghaddafi. To buy Tony Blair. And, Sarkozy. And, other politicians.

Do you know the sums I'm discussing? BILLIONS. AND, BILLIONS. AND, BILLIONS.

But no one penny to build a Libyan economy.

CATNIP, if you can build this country's infrastructure. And, end the terror.

In Irak the business is now going to the Chinese. Because Maliki, personally, wants to screw the Americans.

Also, what is the 5th Fleet going to do? They've totally pulled out of Bahrain. You don't think the coast of Libya wouldn't be better?

AJ Lynch said...

DBQ:

I think Obama is thick, stubborn and not that smart. I think he is a far left doctrinaire liberal who really thought it was simple to redistribute income when you had the political power. I think he is as cynical as most other pols and so he lies when convenient.

I think he is mostly incompetent,unqualified and too inexperienced to even be a mid-level manager in a medium sized company.

That said, I defend Bush against accusations that he lied about Iraq intel and I defend Obama agaianst accusations that he lied about stuff like closing Gitmo. Because Obama is so dense he never thought it through and just assumed it would be easy.

Lastly, we have now had two straight presidents who have been litle qualified for the job. Thats is 12 years of subpar chief excutives and the country is paying the price for it.

kent said...

I smell catnip for a reason.

Learn the crucial difference between catnip and Kool-Aid, dear.

Carol_Herman said...

7 Machos, go ahead and insult people all you want. There's no knowledge that helps us guess what's in the future.

And, the only "opinion" I have is that Obama chose CATNIP.

Dunno what happens.

All I know is that unlike the "anti-war movement" ... I think Obama wants an outcome that helps him win re-election. And, yes. Libya might help him do this.

The 5th Fleet moving to Turkey? Surely you jest.

I also know it is not easy to take a country like Libya, where Ghaddafi's cult has to be shaken off, first. And, bringing it to life. (Heck, I even added tourism to it's prospects.)

But what if the outcome, ahead, is NOT like the outcome that the Bush's got?

Seven Machos said...

There's no knowledge that helps us guess what's in the future.

I pity the strange and unpredictable life you must live.

Will the sun rise tomorrow? We just don't know.

Quaestor said...

By my count the United States has fought only five congressionally declared wars in its history. If Robert Cook is going to be consistent with his "war criminal" canard, then he ought to indict a few others besides Obama and Bush, beginning with John Adams.

Michael K said...

"Obama ONLY cares about being President (the trappings and the wealth and the prestige of being on ESPN whenever he wants to be). He doesn't care about anything else. He doesn't have any position on any issue that he can't advocate for both ways depending on the calculus of the moment."

This is exactly right. That's why I don't worry about him having to dye his hair.

Carol, Clinton remained in office in 1998 because he had been re-elected in 1996. Such brilliance would be more impressive if Google didn't exist.

Michael K said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Seven Machos said...

Oh God. Is Robert Cook here? Robert: I've been waiting patiently since about 2003: please, please, please tell us about the treaty the United States signed or the international law Congress or any federal authority otherwise agreed to allowing the United Nations to determine which wars we as a nation may or may not enter, and that American policymakers may be prosecuted for violating UN edicts. Because you argued that here.

Come on, dude. I've been waiting so long. It's like you are totally and completely full of shit or something. It's like you have no fucking clue what you are talking about.

Say it ain't so.

Mark said...

Carol, the problem with your reasoning is that it presumes that Obama is actually interested in the situation in Libya.

Members of his Administration are. The Won, not so much I think.

This is a man who in two years as President has played 1098 holes of golf, and in two years as a U.S. Senator bothered to vote Yea or Nay 219 times. (He was "NV" 164 times, meaning he was absent or voted Present about 42% of the time - Link.)

He's just mailing it in, same as he did in his previous jobs. But in this one the perqs are awesome!

kent said...

Shorter Carol: "Democrat bombs goooooood. Republican bombs baaaaaaad."

edutcher said...

Carol_Herman said...

Irak has 3 factions. Kurds. Shia. And, Sunni. The saud's pushed BOTH Bush's to take on Saddam. How has that worked out?

Last I looked, we won.

Even The Zero admits it.

Carol_Herman said...

Clinton beat being impeached, because the senate defeated the House measure

In the 1998 election republicans who passed the impeachment resolution in the House were DEFEATED at the polls.

The only reason this comes up, now, is that there are fools who think Obama can be impeached.

It would be insane for republicans to impeach Obama! Talk of drinking the Kool-aid.

Seven Machos said...

I think Carol is a tinfoil hat conservative.

Anyway, there is no serious movement to impeach Obama. Thus, Carol, your argument amounts to:

there are fools who think we should all eat our children.

It would be insane for us to eat our children! Talk of drinking the Kool-aid.

kent said...

As U.S. Strikes Libya Michael Moore Says Obama Should Return Nobel Peace Prize

Man... when the Jug-Eared Jesus has managed to lose even so ferociously loyal a fellator as ol' "Double Stuff" Moore...

... well: damn.

AllenS said...

Well, you know what they say: "If you've lost Michael Moore, you've lost about 400 pounds of shit."

Carol_Herman said...

There is no one here who can guess the future!

Yes, I'm surprised that we've engaged in bombing Libyan targets.

Not so surprised though at this being CAPNIP. In terms of how it will be playing out, ahead, politically.

While I don't think Sarah Palin attracts enough votes to win a presidential election.

Quaestor said...

AJ Lynch wrote: I think Obama is thick, stubborn and not that smart. I think he is a far left doctrinaire liberal who really thought it was simple to redistribute income when you had the political power.

Obama's about the right age to have taken this instruction. Did he cut that class, do you suppose? Or did he just sit there daydreaming? Is is he indeed too think to have learnt the lesson offered?

Probably none of the above, IMAO. Obama has always known common sense limitations just don't apply to world historic figures like himself.

wv: cemiceo - yep, that's what we've got up thar in Washington, temporarily down thar in Brazil.

Seven Machos said...

There is no one here who can guess the future!

The sun will rise tomorrow. In the East!

I have much else. What are you willing to pay for my awesome powers of clairvoyance?

Carol_Herman said...

7 machos, I think you're the conservative. Why are you so hot to insult people?

WV: hot tort

Hoosierman said...

While we listen to the main stream media explain how clever the administration is to have got the UN on board, then the European allies, and then the Arab league we might remember that the American public was not consulted and is not on board. While polling is scant it suggests that opposition to involvement is in the 60%-65% range. Are we to expect more popular support as the war wears on?

Seven Machos said...

Carol -- I'm only hot to insult silly people, not people in general.

What else do you want to know about the future. I can tell you a lot about the weather. Also, my weight and height.

Quaestor said...

think = thick.
Me thick, too, bossfella

Carol_Herman said...

7 matchos: You can't predict the future, stupid.

RuyDiaz said...

Unlike Iraq and Afghanistan. Right, Carol?

For someone so short on knowledge, you are awful long on opinions.


Seven Machos:

As we are often reminded, Afghanistan was an earthly paradise of grape-growing, kite-flying peaceful muslims, and Mesopotamia is the very cradle of civilization. So Carol wins.

(*nods to self in self-congratulatory approval*)

Revenant said...

What IS the legal authority cited by Obama for ordering the attacks? I haven't really been paying attention to the Libya situation this last week.

edutcher said...

Carol_Herman said...

Clinton beat being impeached, because the senate defeated the House measure

No. Willie was impeached, but the Senate refused to try him.

Big difference.

In the 1998 election republicans who passed the impeachment resolution in the House were DEFEATED at the polls.

No. They took losses, but they retained control of the House (undeservedly, IMHO).

MrBuddwing said...

Willie was impeached, but the Senate refused to try him.

No, more like President Clinton was impeached, but the Senate refused to convict him.

WV: recatio.

Seven Machos said...

Forget it, guys. Carol is rolling.

I will give each and every one of you 1,000,000,000:1 odds about the sun rising every day this week. In the event of a sun outage, you could really make a lot of money off me.

vbspurs said...

Maguro wrote:

Let's just say that Barry's views have "evolved".

No, they were never his real views to begin with, if he ever seriously thought of becoming President. It was political strategy to differentiate him from President Bush, which would then be lapped up by his overexcitable minions -- like a single payer health care system, and the closing of Guantanamo.

Suckas.

vbspurs said...

Oh crap, Ut said everything better with his 3:19 reply.

Seven Machos said...

Maybe Carol's been reading way too much David Hume without any adult supervision. That could explain it.

lewsar said...

PUBLIC SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENT!

it's 'iraq', not 'irak'.

speaking only for myself, it's really hard to take someone seriously who can't spell something that simple.

thank you for your attention.

edutcher said...

MrBuddwing said...

Willie was impeached, but the Senate refused to try him.

No, more like President Clinton was impeached, but the Senate refused to convict him.


There was no trial, IIRC. I understand where you're going (the old, "What a man is able to do and what a man is willing to do"), but I think the distinction is significant.

Carol_Herman said...

7-Machos. Me, reading David Hume? I kept thinking it was the Masons who had the "lock" on our Founding Fathers.

Now, I've been asked, here, "what's the difference between Irak and Libya" ... and it dawned on me: POPULATION SIZE

So, if it was CATNIP that dragged in both Bush presidents; and, I think it has just dragged in Obama ... one of the things I'd ask ...

Since, maybe, Libya has a total of 6-million people in it. What would it take to FIX a broken country when the population's total is so small?

You don't need to read philosophy to figure this one out.

Is politics involved in the choice that was just made? Yes. I think so.

Nope. Can't prove a thing.

But I would be surprised if Obama's standing as president is flushed down the toilet. (Heck, I saw this as a Rocky Balboa comeback play.)

Carol_Herman said...

Hey, Lewstar, I spell it democraps.

And, Irak works for me. I've been spelling it this way since the "war."

Quaestor said...

Nope. All comments so far regarding Clinton's impeachment are short of factuality. (How's that for euphemism?)

The Senate trial began on January 7, 1999, with Chief Justice of the United States William Rehnquist presiding. On February 12, 1999 the Senate voted to acquit, 45 to 55 on the perjury charge, 50 to 50 on the obstruction of justice count.

By my reading of the Constitution on this matter once a President or Justice is indicted by the House the Senate is obliged to convene a trial. They are not obliged to convict, obviously.

Quaestor said...

And, Irak works for me. I've been spelling it this way since the "war."

Why? Is it a kind of sixties redux "Amerika" kind of thing?

Quaestor said...

There is a certain lone wolf cussedness that recommends idiosyncratic spelling, e.g. the rejection orthography as a celebration of heterodoxy in the crusty but colorful sourdough style: "They're my words and I'll spell 'em any dang way I please, dagnabit!"

However, such persons often end up talking to themselves.

Seven Machos said...

Nietzsche always spelled resentment in French: resentiment.

chickelit said...

Cedarford said...

Case in point. If the religious right base of the Republicans gives us Palin or a Fundie as the alternative candidate, Obama wins re-election.

Why don't you trot out again exactly why you think Palin is a religious right candidate?

Be sure to rely on totems.

When you hope and wish for Palin's exclusion, what you're really wishing for is the exclusion of Midwestern and transplanted Midwestern values [emphasis added] in mainstream American politics. I understand that coming from you and other Sullivanists. But I expect better from the RNC national leadership.

wv = "churanti" A sweet red wine prepared by Tuscan immigrants in Mexico.

Simon said...

Obama was wrong then, and I am glad--albeit not surprised--that he has now seen the light, as former Vice President Cheney predicted. The critics, right and left alike, make a simple but fatal analytical error: they suppose that "any military action" = "war" that must be declared by Congress, perhaps reading the War Powers Act's definition back into section 8. But there is a long tradition of reading the Constitution to authorize military action without Congressional permission. If conservative critics accept the premise that Obama is doing something wrong, they must agree Reagan should have been impeached over Grenada, and if liberal critics do likewise, they must agree Clinton should have been impeached over Kosovo. Neither of those Presidents, nor Obama, have gone beyond their limits.

chickelit said...

Seven Machos said...
Nietzsche always spelled resentment in French: resentiment

I'm certain the French throw an extra s in there too for good measure-ressentiment-hiss!

Oh and they pronounce it like appartement.

vbspurs said...

Quaestor wrote:

There is a certain lone wolf cussedness that recommends idiosyncratic spelling, e.g. the rejection orthography as a celebration of heterodoxy in the crusty but colorful sourdough style: "They're my words and I'll spell 'em any dang way I please, dagnabit!"

Incidentally, idiosyncratic orthography is far more prevalent with males than females.

However, such persons often end up talking to themselves.

What do you mean, end up? It's happening now.

vbspurs said...

I'm certain the French throw an extra s in there too for good measure-ressentiment-hiss!

Yes! Also, Germans fling French and Latin words casually into their conversation. Their word for film/theatre director is Regisseur, from the French, and pronounced as in French.

edutcher said...

Quaestor said...

Nope. All comments so far regarding Clinton's impeachment are short of factuality. (How's that for euphemism?)

The Senate trial began on January 7, 1999, with Chief Justice of the United States William Rehnquist presiding. On February 12, 1999 the Senate voted to acquit, 45 to 55 on the perjury charge, 50 to 50 on the obstruction of justice count.


Damn. I just do not recall it. I seem to remember the "managers" being talked about and how they used Johnson's trial as a reference, but I do not remember arguments being presented and evidence admitted.

And I'm not that old.

Sixty Grit said...

Obama is funny.

Quaestor said...

Nietzsche always spelled resentment in French: resentiment.

Perhaps it was because he found the German Groll insufficient or inaccurate somehow, and considered the French more agreeable to his intent? Or maybe it just that wrongheaded cussedness I mentioned earlier, he did wind up talking to himself, didn't he?

wv: tessness - what the Derbyville lass had in abundance

madawaskan said...

Well there is another commenter doing that and I think they should get a special dispensation.

English is not their first language.

I absolutely hate when someone from another country gets hounded off an English speaking blog.

madawaskan said...

To that particular commenter-

Know that I value your contributions around here highly.

I'm guessing you might be a fan of Aznar....?

Love him.

Quaestor said...

Incidentally, idiosyncratic orthography is far more prevalent with males than females.

Ah, come on, now... Have you conducted a study, suitably weighted and double blinded?

Timon said...

France and UK agree: that makes it tri-lateral. And cadafee is a bad man who may kill people: what use are boundaries and sovereignty in the face of that?

Quaestor said...

... I think they should get a special dispensation.

I wasn't referring to simple misspelling that results from ignorance or haste (I'm well neigh a Nuremberg-scale offender in that category) I was referring to deliberate use of idiosyncratic spelling, such as Carol's use of "irak" for Iraq. Perhaps I'm wrong but I took away the impression she intended some deeper significance from that spelling. My criticism was idiosyncratic spelling is a poor method to convey meaning when compared to simply stating one's case as clearly as possible using the words with their conventional spelling.

Fred Drinkwater said...

Re: the Senate trial of Clinton:
How can anyone have forgotten the kerfuffle over Rehnquist's choice of robe decoration?
Of course the trial was held.

WV: pepolar - The alternative to cartesian public support.

madawaskan said...

Quaestor

I am not defending someone who I never, ever address....

Quaestor said...

WV: pepolar - The alternative to cartesian public support.

Ha! Ha!

Imagine Gallop numbers expressed as multiples of pi!

Bushman of the Kohlrabi said...

But he never campaigned on attacking Libya!

Since we can't recall him I guess impeachment is the only viable option.

former law student said...

Context was no preemptive bombing of Iran w/o Congressional authorization. In Libya we're bound by treaty.

Simon said...

former law student said...
"In Libya we're bound by treaty."

That was an issue I reserved in my post; can you speak to that? Are we obliged by any treaty to support military action authorized by the UN?

MisterBuddwing said...

There was no trial, IIRC.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_of_Bill_Clinton

WV: scadsov

Freeman Hunt said...

Just to be clear, I am all for our taking action. Now that that's clear...

Rev asked, What IS the legal authority cited by Obama for ordering the attacks?

I don't know that he specified. I heard he just yelled, "By the power of Greyskull, I have the power!" before ordering the attacks.

I think that's about how seriously he takes the text of the Constitution.

jr565 said...

Carol Herman wrote:
But no one penny to build a Libyan economy.

CATNIP, if you can build this country's infrastructure. And, end the terror.

In Irak the business is now going to the Chinese. Because Maliki, personally, wants to screw the Americans.

Except that's exactly what Sadaam did (use his riches from his European counterparts to build his plaaces and mantain his programs). Which in fact was one of the miscalculations we made as to the cost to rebuild Iraq after removing Sadaam. We didn't realize the extent to which Sadaam's infrastructure was shot to shit, and not because we bombed the country into the stone age. No, because that was never Sadaam's priority.
Now as to Libya. If, as you say there is nothing there, no infrastructure and it's all the Cult of Qadaffi, how do you propose to build an economy when there's nothing there now, nor any comprehension as to how to do it. Who are the opposition leaders stepping forward to even say how they would build not rebuild the economy)?
You write:

All that oil wealth. Used by Ghaddafi. To buy Tony Blair. And, Sarkozy. And, other politicians.

Do you know the sums I'm discussing? BILLIONS. AND, BILLIONS. AND, BILLIONS.

How is that different from the oil for food program? Billions and billions and billions.



But no one penny to build a Libyan economy.

CATNIP, if you can build this country's infrastructure. And, end the terror.

In Irak the business is now going to the Chinese. Because Maliki, personally, wants to screw the Americans.

So how many trillions are you proposing we use to rebuild Libya and wont that require us to get even more involved in Libya beyond simply setting up no fly zones. It sounds like you are proposing nation building. And if we were to go that route, what makes you think that we wouldn't meet the same opposition we faced in Iraq and Afghanistan? Why would terrorists not view Libya as yet another recruitment tool, and yet another way the infidel is trying to encroach on Islamic land for imperialistic means. How are you proposing we end the terror? Wouldn't that require us to go door to door and have a long term footprint in the area. And similarly why wouldn't anti american factiosn like those in Iraq not similarly surface? Or should we simply take 100 billion dollars in cash and simply drop it from airplanes and let the Libyans do as they would?
This is not to say that a case couldn't be made to remove Qadaffi. I'm all for it. I just don't see how you're proposing we build Libya without, er, nation building. ANd if you want to go that route, what again was your beef with Iraq again?

Phil 3:14 said...

Freeman;
Just to be clear, I am all for our taking action. Now that that's clear..

And why not Yemen as well. And Sudan before that. And Congo before that.

I'm struggling with what makes Libya so special

Seven Machos said...

Phil -- What you are missing is that Yemen and Sudan, etc. are not modern states at all. The infrastructure just isn't there.

Iraq and Libya both are.

We would never, ever be in Afghanistan but for the fact that Bin Laden had a base there before he died.

Joe said...

Rev asked, What IS the legal authority cited by Obama for ordering the attacks?

That he is command-in-chief. The constitution specifies that only congress can DECLARE war. This language relates to the language of diplomacy, especially at that time. My view is that it was meant as a legal shield in case a President or Ambassador blurted out "I declare War!" in a fit of anger (as crazy kings of England were wont to do.) The US could then say that those were just words, not an actual legal declaration, which mattered greatly. (There are still people that to this day get their undies in a bunch over Japan doing a sneak attack without, gasp, a formal declaration of war! Now days, hardly anyone takes declarations of war seriously.)

Revenant said...

That he is command-in-chief. The constitution specifies that only congress can DECLARE war.

That's neither the original intent of the Constitution nor the way that section has normally been interpreted.

Outside of certain limited circumstances, Congress must authorize military action. Once it has done so -- e.g., with the AUMF -- the President pretty much has free reign in how he conducts the war. But he can't just say "I'm the commander in chief and I've decided to bomb Libya for the hell of it".

Usually what Presidents do when they want to carry out a military action without waiting for Congressional sign-off is to declare that it is a matter of national security. I assume that's what Obama is doing, but I haven't heard one way or the other.

Phil 3:14 said...

Seven;
Phil -- What you are missing is that Yemen and Sudan, etc. are not modern states at all. The infrastructure just isn't there.

Iraq and Libya both are.


Well, whether we're there or not it seems all of these countries in conflict revert to tribalism. Iraq had a successful middle class but after years of dictatorship (from the Tikrit clan) and wars they've reverted to tribalism.

Our biggest ally, Saudi Arabia, is a whether country run by the Saud tribe.

Lately I've been reading Numbers in the Bible. And I wonder, is the Kingdom of Jordan just the realm of the "Ammonites" a few thousand years later and few (many) wars later? (And Hussein is a "modern, enlightened and western-educated" king!)

Joe said...

Rev, what alternate history are you reading? When the constitution was written, there was a profound difference between one nation declaring war on another and one nation taking limited military action against another.

Many presidents have ordered military action comparable to what Obama has done. That doesn't make those actions right nor does it make Obama any less of a hypocrite.

Even if not constitutionaly required in my opinion, going to Congress provides political cover, which is why I think most presidents do it. On the other hand, Bush got as clear a formal declaration of support as you could get and it didn't provide him cover, so why bother? (I don't think Obama has even thought that far. He wanted to appear decisive and so made a decision. I've long felt that Obama believes Bush was an imperial president and is now puzzled as to why he can't be.)

Revenant said...

Rev, what alternate history are you reading? When the constitution was written, there was a profound difference between one nation declaring war on another and one nation taking limited military action against another.

Not really. But in any case, Congress didn't want the President doing either of those things, which is why the power to declare war rests with them.

The notion that they were worried about the President blurting out "I declare war" is retarded and without any historical support. What they didn't want was the President launching attacks on other countries, the way kings did, without the permission of the legislature.