Lybia

[Piscator]

Originally Posted by spence

Yes, twice actually

You're making a point out of context and in the same post admitting it's out of context. Preemptive (or worse preventative) war isn't the same thing as an internationally legal humanitarian mission and you know it...

-spence

Read it again then. Obama says “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. In instances of self-defense, the President would be within his constitutional authority to act before advising Congress or seeking its consent. History has shown us time and again, however, that military action is most successful when it is authorized and supported by the Legislative branch. It is always preferable to have the informed consent of Congress prior to any military action…………………………………… He then says: As for the specific question about bombing suspected nuclear sites, I recently introduced S.J.Res.23, which states in part that “any offensive military action taken by the United States against Iran must be explicitly authorized by Congress.”

I’m not Taking it out of context at all.

Maybe I see it how it is, as WAR.
Bombs, rockets, killing, etc. Ask anyone fighting in it and I'm pretty sure they will say it is WAR, War zone, whatever intellectual words you want to sugar coat it with, t’s a War, pretty much common sense, and you know it....

[mosholu]

I guess from reading these posts that some of you feel, as I do, that there is a lack of doctrine over the last 25 years about when US forces should be committed by the President.
To that extent I would ask the following question:
Do people think that since the draft has ended the Presidents have been more willing to commit US forces in various situations because the public is not as involved as when the draft, in theory, effected a larger base of the population?
My own take on this was that military actions would be less often and of a much more limited nature because the political fall out from having more young men and women at home subject to military service would keep the executive on a tight leash.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by mosholu

I guess from reading these posts that some of you feel, as I do, that there is a lack of doctrine over the last 25 years about when US forces should be committed by the President.
To that extent I would ask the following question:
Do people think that since the draft has ended the Presidents have been more willing to commit US forces in various situations because the public is not as involved as when the draft, in theory, effected a larger base of the population?
My own take on this was that military actions would be less often and of a much more limited nature because the political fall out from having more young men and women at home subject to military service would keep the executive on a tight leash.

Perhaps, but we did lose more soldiers in military adventures when the draft was mandatory. Could the decrease in deaths be solely due to technical advances that make obsolete old ways of battle? Or has the bureaucratic tendency to squander resources when the supply of those resources is great--money or bodies--been changed by a draftless military depending on a smaller pool of select recruits? Is that military less willing to throw masses of well trained valuable career oriented young bodies into sure death to gain some ground, and more willing to spend billions on technology that can kill at the push of a button? And have our political leaders seen this advanced, powerful military weapon not only as as an enforcer of the traditional doctrine of engaging it as a force to protect the homeland and ensure American interests, but as a tool to change the world--a weapon not only of the United States, but also of the United Nations?

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Perhaps, but we did lose more soldiers in military adventures when the draft was mandatory. Could the decrease in deaths be solely due to technical advances that make obsolete old ways of battle? Or has the bureaucratic tendency to squander resources when the supply of those resources is great--money or bodies--been changed by a draftless military depending on a smaller pool of select recruits? Is that military less willing to throw masses of well trained valuable career oriented young bodies into sure death to gain some ground, and more willing to spend billions on technology that can kill at the push of a button? And have our political leaders seen this advanced, powerful military weapon not only as as an enforcer of the traditional doctrine of engaging it as a force to protect the homeland and ensure American interests, but as a tool to change the world--a weapon not only of the United States, but also of the United Nations?

I think there have been studies that indicate the protection technology, body armour etc... has had a lot to do with the decrease in battlefield deaths.

A good read on the topic on the over reliance on military strength as a universal problem solver is Andrew Bacevich's "The New American Militarism."

-spence

[spence]

Originally Posted by Piscator

Read it again then. Obama says “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. In instances of self-defense, the President would be within his constitutional authority to act before advising Congress or seeking its consent.

History has shown us time and again, however, that military action is most successful when it is authorized and supported by the Legislative branch. It is always preferable to have the informed consent of Congress prior to any military action…………………………………… He then says: As for the specific question about bombing suspected nuclear sites, I recently introduced S.J.Res.23, which states in part that “any offensive military action taken by the United States against Iran must be explicitly authorized by Congress.”

The context for the quote is specifically about preventative war with Iran to bomb their nuclear facilities. To take this remark as a generalization and apply it to Libya seems like a stretch.

Maybe I see it how it is, as WAR.
Bombs, rockets, killing, etc. Ask anyone fighting in it and I'm pretty sure they will say it is WAR, War zone, whatever intellectual words you want to sugar coat it with, t’s a War, pretty much common sense, and you know it....

War is both a noun and a verb. War can be a legal word...to do with legal matters, treaties, property and all that nasty stuff. To assert that killing, bombs etc... is war because it's ugly...well duh. I thought this forum was a bit beyond that...

-spence

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

The context for the quote is specifically about preventative war with Iran to bomb their nuclear facilities. To take this remark as a generalization and apply it to Libya seems like a stretch.


War is both a noun and a verb. War can be a legal word...to do with legal matters, treaties, property and all that nasty stuff. To assert that killing, bombs etc... is war because it's ugly...well duh. I thought this forum was a bit beyond that...I wish we were beyond your intellectual dishonesty...the self-ordained intellectuals here can barely spell, while at the same time lecturing on things like ignorance and intelligence




no, he speaks generally with regard to presidential power and engagment of the military and then specifically with regard to Iranian nuclear facilities, what is the difference between bombing nuclear facilities to prevent Amadin. from using them, or products from them against a population and bombing tanks, troops and shooting down jets to prevent their use by Gad. against a population? neither being ours

??? preventative war with Iran -spence

Iran doesn't pose a "serious threat to us"...what ever happened to those talks???

"Iran, Cuba, Venezuela -- these countries are tiny compared to the Soviet Union," Obama said. "They don't pose a serious threat to us the way the Soviet Union posed a threat to us. And yet we were willing to talk to the Soviet Union at the time when they were saying we're going to wipe you off the planet. And ultimately that direct engagement led to a series of measures that helped prevent nuclear war, and over time allowed the kind of opening that brought down the Berlin Wall. Now, that has to be the kind of approach that we take. You know, Iran, they spend one-one hundredth of what we spend on the military. If Iran ever tried to pose a serious threat to us, they wouldn't stand a chance. And we should use that position of strength that we have to be bold enough to go ahead and listen." Obama(sounds like Obama thought this one was going to be a fast break and a slam dunk)

I'm not suggesting that he does not have the authority to go in to Libya or that we should not intervene, only that he is, as Piscator stated, an utter hypocrit based on his past comments, which should surprise noone at this point just as your dutiful, twisted spin of all things Obama should surprise noone...

[spence]

Originally Posted by scottw

what is the difference between bombing nuclear facilities to prevent Amadin. from using them, or products from them against a population and bombing tanks, troops and shooting down jets to prevent their use by Gad. against a population? neither being ours

The situation in Iran is a hypothetical. While Iranian nukes shift the balance of power, the odds that they would be employed against Iran's neighbors or given to terrorists is probably quite remote.

The situation in Libya is real. Indiscriminate bombing of civilians was occurring. The situation was deteriorating and heading towards a likely genocide. The destabilizing impact of this would most certainly harm US interests, especially those of our Arab allies.

What's remarkable is how the Administration united Western and Middle Eastern interests under International Law. I'm not sure this has ever been done before and could set a very positive precedent.

Useless random quote snipped.

I'm not suggesting that he does not have the authority to go in to Libya or that we should not intervene, only that he is, as Piscator stated, an utter hypocrit based on his past comments, which should surprise noone at this point just as your dutiful, twisted spin of all things Obama should surprise noone...

Full Text...

(Boston Globe) In what circumstances, if any, would the president have constitutional authority to bomb Iran without seeking a use-of-force authorization from Congress? (Specifically, what about the strategic bombing of suspected nuclear sites -- a situation that does not involve stopping an 'Imminent' threat?)

(Candidate Obama) 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.

As Commander-in-Chief, the President does have a duty to protect and defend the United States. In instances of self-defense, the President would be within his constitutional authority to act before advising Congress or seeking its consent. History has shown us time and again, however, that military action is most successful when it is authorized and supported by the Legislative branch. It is always preferable to have the informed consent of Congress prior to any military action.

As for the specific question about bombing suspected nuclear sites, I recently introduced S.J. Res. 23, which states in part that “any offensive military action taken by the United States against Iran must be explicitly authorized by Congress.” The recent NIE tells us that Iran in 2003 halted its effort to design a nuclear weapon. While this does not mean that Iran is no longer a threat to the United States or its allies, it does give us time to conduct aggressive and principled personal diplomacy aimed at preventing Iran from developing nuclear weapons.

Clearly Obama is responding to a question specifically about how a President Obama would deal with Iran, not every conceivable action that might involve military activity.

With Libya, Congress was informed as is required under the War Powers Act and has legal recourse to halt the military involvement if they so wish.

I'd also note that on March 1st the Senate voted UNANIMOUSLY in support of a no fly zone, so the idea that Obama is going off alone here just isn't reality.

-spence

[scottw]

[QUOTE=spence;847238]Clearly Obama is responding to a question specifically about how a President Obama would deal with Iran, not every conceivable action that might involve military activity. 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.except Libya in 2011?

With Libya, Congress was informed as is required under the War Powers Act and has legal recourse to halt the military involvement if they so wish.-Spence

OBAMA-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. In instances of self-defense, the President would be within his constitutional authority to act before advising Congress or seeking its consent. History has shown us time and again, however, that military action is most successful when it is authorized and supported by the Legislative branch. It is always preferable to have the "informed consent " of Congress prior to any military action.

Boehner's point: Obama White House notified Congress---but did not consult. By Lynn Sweet on March 24, 2011 11:09 AM | No Comments

WASHINGTON---House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) has a point--that the White House, despite their assertions, did not consult with Congress very much about the military action in Libya. Boehner and others have a number of legitimate questions about the U.S. engagement that need answering.

The Obama administration briefed members and staffers after the decision was made to attack; that's a one-way street, Boehner spokesman Brendan Buck noted on Thursday in a memo he sent around. "Consulting implies one is seeking input on if and how to act. The earliest communication on this topic was last Friday, when leaders were informed of the WH plan. At that point, the plan was already in motion and the use of U.S. military assets had already been committed to other nations. ....Notification is always appreciated, but it is not a substitute for the long-respected custom of congressional consultation before committing to military action, even the kinetic kind."

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

I'd also note that on March 1st the Senate voted UNANIMOUSLY in support of a no fly zone, so the idea that Obama is going off alone here just isn't reality.

-spence

You're making a point out of context and in the same post admitting it's out of context. Preemptive (or worse preventative) war isn't the same thing as an internationally legal humanitarian mission and you know it...

-spence


HUMANITARIAN MISSION?....not a WAR?

March 27th, 2011

Analysts are now saying the important battle will be for Surt, and that allied airstrikes are already paving the way.

Many people in Tripoli, including those supporting Colonel Qaddafi and those opposing him, said they were focused closely on the battle for Surt.


.................................................. ...
Ross Douthat asks some great questions in the NY Times today


What are our military objectives? The strict letter of the United Nations resolution we’re enforcing only authorizes the use of air power to protect civilian populations “under threat of attack” from Qaddafi’s forces. But we’re interpreting that mandate as liberally as possible: our strikes have cleared the way for a rebel counteroffensive, whose success is contingent on our continued air support.

If the rebels stall out short of Tripoli, though, how will we respond? With a permanent no-fly zone, effectively establishing a NATO protectorate in eastern Libya? With arms for the anti-Qaddafi forces, so they can finish the job? Either way, the logic of this conflict suggests a more open-ended commitment than the White House has been willing to admit.

Who exactly are the rebels? According to our ambassador to Libya, they have issued policy statements that include “all the right elements” — support for democracy, economic development, women’s rights, etc. According to The Los Angeles Times, they have filled what used to be Qaddafi’s prisons with “enemies of the revolution” — mostly black Africans, rounded up under suspicion of being mercenaries and awaiting revolutionary justice. According to The Daily Telegraph in London, their front-line forces include what one rebel commander calls the “patriots and good Muslims” who fought American forces in Iraq.

Perhaps Obama can clarify this picture. The rebels don’t need to be saints to represent an improvement on Qaddafi. But given that we’re dropping bombs on their behalf, it would be nice if they didn’t turn out to be Jacobins or Islamists.

Can we really hand off this mission? Officially, this is a far more multilateral venture than was, say, the invasion of Iraq. But as Foreign Policy’s Josh Rogin points out, when it comes to direct military support, this war’s coalition is “smaller than any major multilateral operation since the end of the Cold War.” Officially, too, the United States is already stepping back into a supporting role, as NATO takes over the command. But as Wired’s Spencer Ackerman argues, the difference between a “high” United States involvement and a “low” military commitment may prove more semantic than meaningful.

Obama has said our involvement will be measured in “days, not weeks.” With one week down already, is this really plausible? And anyway, how responsible is it to commit American forces to a mission and then suggest, as a senior administration official did last week, that “how it turns out is not on our shoulders”?

Is Libya distracting us from more pressing American interests? While we’ve been making war on Qaddafi’s tin-pot regime, our enemies in Syria have been shooting protesters, our allies in Saudi Arabia have been crushing dissidents, Yemen’s government is teetering, there’s been an upsurge of violence in Israel, and the Muslim Brotherhood seems to be moving smoothly into an alliance with the Egyptian military. Oh, and we’re still occupying Iraq and fighting a counterinsurgency in Afghanistan and trying to contain Iran.

Last week, The Atlantic’s Jeffrey Goldberg rank-ordered Mideast trouble spots that “demand more American attention than Libya.” He came up with six: Afghanistan-Pakistan, Iran, Iraq, Yemen’s Qaeda havens, post-Mubarak Egypt and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

One can quibble with Goldberg’s ordering but not his broader point. While we intervene in Libya, what is our Egypt policy? Our Yemen policy? Our Syria policy? With the entire Middle East in turmoil, does it make sense that Washington is focused so intently on who controls the highway between Ajdabiya and Surt?

It’s clear that not everyone in this White House thinks so. Defending the intervention on “Meet the Press” on Sunday, Robert Gates let slip that he believes that Libya is not a “vital interest” of the United States.

President Obama’s most pressing task tonight will be to explain why his secretary of defense is wrong — and why, appearances to the contrary, the potential payoff from our Libyan war more than justifies the risks.

[justplugit]

If we wanted the rebels, whoever THEY are,not knowing scares me, the no fly zone
should have started months ago when they were showing an upper hand
not wait till now as they were being driven back.
If Gaddafi doesn't go, the last state will be worse then the first.

If the plan was to get rid of Qaddafi , who isn't a threat to us, it should have been
done by targeting him rather then having all these people who
we are now supposedly trying to protect getting killed.

This whole thing with NATO, which was formed to protect each member
if attacked by Russia, is a smoke screen for Obama not taking the blame for being the bad guy.

Suddenly we are there to defend human rights, but when the Iranian people
were rebelling we did nothing to help them. At least Iran was a direct threat to
us. The whole middle east is on fire with human rights issues. Getting involved
with Libya just doesn't make sense.

This whole thing is crazy and I guess we'll find out what it is, like when Pelosi said we would know and understand about HC, after it's all done.
What a joke, whatever the out come is, the Administration will say that was the
original plan.

Let's get our own house in order first, and stop policing the world.

[scottw]

ouch...FACT CHECK: How Obama's Libya claims fit the facts - Yahoo! News

bad headline...should read.."how Obama's claims completely distort the facts...again"

[Piscator]

Originally Posted by spence

The context for the quote is specifically about preventative war with Iran to bomb their nuclear facilities. To take this remark as a generalization and apply it to Libya seems like a stretch.
-spence

Spence, I guess most of us read it differently than you do.

Obama first gives a general comment about Presidential power and than specifically answers the question, When answering the question he actually says “AS FOR THE SPECIFIC QUESTION ABOUT BOMBING SUSPECTED NUCLEAR SITES”. It is clear as day he is giving a general comment then a specific answer to the question.

This is how I read it:
Boston Globe) Q: In what circumstances would the president have constitutional authority to bomb Iran without seeking a use-of-force authorization from Congress?

GENBERAL COMMENT BY OBAMA: 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. In instances of self-defense, the President would be within his constitutional authority to act before advising Congress or seeking its consent. History has shown us time and again, however, that military action is most successful when it is authorized and supported by the Legislative branch. It is always preferable to have the informed consent of Congress prior to any military action.

He then goes on to give a SPECIFIC ANSWER TO THE ORIGINAL QUESTION “As for the specific question about bombing suspected nuclear sites, I recently introduced S.J.Res.23, which states in part that “any offensive military action taken by the United States against Iran must be explicitly authorized by Congress.”
Source: Boston Globe questionnaire on Executive Power Dec 20, 2007

Just another example of him saying one thing and doing another………..

[spence]

Originally Posted by Piscator

Spence, I guess most of us read it differently than you do.

Obama first gives a general comment about Presidential power and than specifically answers the question, When answering the question he actually says “AS FOR THE SPECIFIC QUESTION ABOUT BOMBING SUSPECTED NUCLEAR SITES”. It is clear as day he is giving a general comment then a specific answer to the question.

The entire context is Iran, that was the question..."In what circumstances would the president have constitutional authority to bomb Iran without seeking a use-of-force authorization from Congress?".

If anything, Obama is giving a simplified response as this is a question during a campaign interview. I'm sure he's quite intimate with the long running debate on this topic.

-spence

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

The entire context is Iran, that was the question..."In what circumstances would the president have constitutional authority to bomb Iran without seeking a use-of-force authorization from Congress?".

If anything, Obama is giving a simplified response as this is a question during a campaign interview. I'm sure he's quite intimate with the long running debate on this topic.

-spence

save yourself all the spinning and just declare that all rules and any previous pronouncements by your earthly master do not apply to him...

the "context" is constitutional authority to bomb

"In what circumstances, if any, would the president have constitutional authority to bomb (Iran) without seeking a use-of-force authorization from Congress?"

[spence]

Originally Posted by scottw

save yourself all the spinning and just declare that all rules and any previous pronouncements by your earthly master do not apply to him...

the "context" is constitutional authority to bomb

"In what circumstances, if any, would the president have constitutional authority to bomb (Iran) without seeking a use-of-force authorization from Congress?"

I love it, now you've resorted to manipulating quotes!

Oh wait, you do that all the time.

-spence

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

I love it, now you've resorted to manipulating quotes!

Oh wait, you do that all the time.

-spence

and you've resorted to idiocy

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

The entire context is Iran, that was the question..."In what circumstances would the president have constitutional authority to bomb Iran without seeking a use-of-force authorization from Congress?".

-spence

so you are saying that the president's constitutional authority varies depending on which country in the middle east we are talking about?

OBAMA clearly describes what HE believes the president may or may not do regarding military action, his own words.... and he was specifically referring, in this "hypothetical", to what HE believed should be the bounds of presidential authority regarding miilitary action, and he made very clear any exceptions ...geographic location in the middle east has absolutely nothing to do with it...

Obama- “any offensive military action taken by the United States against (Iran) must be explicitly authorized by Congress.”

why should this vary from one country to the next?...oh, I forgot, we are talking about Obama "you do as I say and I'll do as I please"


is this "Iran specific" "History has shown us time and again, however, that military action is most successful when it is authorized and supported by the Legislative branch. It is always preferable to have the informed consent of Congress prior to any military action. "-Obama

[spence]

Originally Posted by scottw

so you are saying that the president's constitutional authority varies depending on which country in the middle east we are talking about?

OBAMA clearly describes what HE believes the president may or may not do regarding military action, his own words.... and he was specifically referring, in this "hypothetical", to what HE believed should be the bounds of presidential authority regarding miilitary action, and he made very clear any exceptions ...geographic location in the middle east has absolutely nothing to do with it...

Obama- “any offensive military action taken by the United States against (Iran) must be explicitly authorized by Congress.”

why should this vary from one country to the next?...oh, I forgot, we are talking about Obama "you do as I say and I'll do as I please"


is this "Iran specific" "History has shown us time and again, however, that military action is most successful when it is authorized and supported by the Legislative branch. It is always preferable to have the informed consent of Congress prior to any military action. "-Obama

First off, let me congratulate you on actually composing yourself enough to pen a thoughtful and well constructed post. This may be precedent setting and I'm sure it didn't come easily. Hard work should be recognized and appreciated.

Or the meds finally kicked in at the right time.

To answer your question, no, I don't believe the country matters.

The Constitution certainly does appear to give the President the ability to use military force without Congressional approval as Obama says in his quote...And there's also a lot of subjectivity as to what constitutes a "threat" to the US. This has been used to justify all manners of military action without Congressional approval throughout the years...and often with controversy given the situation.

In the case of Libya the UN resolution has a very limited objective but also legal legitimacy and sponsorship from a number of nations. This is the UN acting as much or more than the US acting. There also is a pretty clear threat to US interests.

While certainly not free, the US involvement in enforcing the UN Resolution isn't likely to change the funding or mission of the armed forces...assuming the action is kept within the expected scope.

I don't think you can say the same about any attack on Iran which would likely have stiff opposition from Russia and China and almost certainly escalate rapidly into a much larger conflict. So to even entertain such thoughts one would think Congressional approval would be a requirement.

So I think Obama is correct in asserting that to attack Iran would require Congressional approval. But this isn't a blanket statement on the use of US force.

And you say...

I'm not suggesting that he does not have the authority to go in to Libya or that we should not intervene

Which leads me to believe you actually agree on both points.

-spence

[zimmy]

Originally Posted by spence

Or the meds finally kicked in at the right time.


-spence

Apparently they wore off over night

[Piscator]

Originally Posted by spence

The entire context is Iran, that was the question..."In what circumstances would the president have constitutional authority to bomb Iran without seeking a use-of-force authorization from Congress?".

If anything, Obama is giving a simplified response as this is a question during a campaign interview. I'm sure he's quite intimate with the long running debate on this topic.

-spence

Again Spence, that is how you read it. I read it differently (as well as most others).

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Piscator

Again Spence, that is how you read it. I read it differently (as well as most others).

there is common sense...and then there is common Spence...common Spence enjoys twisting the truth, turning reality on it's head and justifying the unjustifiable for some odd purpose, you can't debate or deal reasonably with someone who is intellectually dishonest because they recognize no bounds of decency or decorum, reality, to them, is whatever they deem it to be at the moment and they take great pleasure in looking you straight in the eye and telling you that black is white or some shade of gray...and then mock or ridicule you for pointing out that it is, in fact, black...it makes them feel much smarter to repeatedly illustrate that they are in fact, dumber as they sneer and hold to their absurd contentions ......you only feed their sick passion when you engage..... but someone has to do it...Spence hasn't been right about anything in years...he continues his streak