CHANGE YOU CAN BELIEVE IN – SORT OF

It’s All So Different Now

(BOSTON GLOBE  – 2008) –

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

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.

"Barry, Barry, Barry, your little fantasy world is about to founder on the shoals of reality. And, kiss your full head of black hair goodbye."

(GLOBAL EXCLAIMER – 2011) –

Glob:  In what circumstances, if any, would the president have constitutional authority to bomb Libya without seeking a use-of-force authorization from Congress?

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, UNLESS I am the President. Bomb Libya? Yes We Can!

What color is the sky on President Obama’s planet?

Ψ

You may find S.J. Res. 23 interesting. Read it, it’s not long. Senator Obama introduced this bill, without co-sponsors, in 2007. Without co-sponsors, mind you, meaning, this was his baby. Something he believed in. Sort of.

Advertisements

3 responses to “CHANGE YOU CAN BELIEVE IN – SORT OF

  1. Hello?Paying attention? The current administration very specifically delayed agreeing to participation in this action because of issues with USAs image in the Arab world. And much needed to be considered besides image: oil security, apparent US predominance and the advantages of that that aspect of image, strategic location, how to prevent the US from owning this one for a long duration, the extent/cost of US military involvement in other geographical arenas, etc., etc. There was some pressure for participation from other countries, and part of global cooperation means working with those other countries (UN). One important matter is the opportunity for demonstration of US resolve in supporting apparent inclinations towards democracy. The point is that it is a complex matter when you look at ALL the interests involved. It seems foolish to me to try and draw the current situation as a specific performance failure of our president. Obama did not make this decision. War has not been declared by any of the participants. This action was NEGOTIATED by all parties concerned. Where it leads, who knows, as it is not even clear what can happen in Libya. All the generals and foreign experts I have watched readily admit almost total ignorance about the country, or Libyans desires, capabilities, etc. So – how to show responsiveness to a request for assistance, at the same time supporting local autonomy? While looking out for Western interests? Hello, this action may be stupid (not that we know that for sure yet) but it does not have the same nature or level of pure childish stupidity that we saw from Bush in Iraq. “You’re either with us, or against us…” That statement goes into history as one of the most ignorant, non-cooperative, immature, bully-idiotic effluvia ever heard from a president’s mouth. In that situation the objective was clear: maintain access to oil. Kill everyone who gets in the way. Pretend to support the people. Contrast to Libya, where people in the international community, (of which we are a part, and therefore have some responsibility), at least have the humility to be cautious. And the US wary.
    Personally I think: Overall, what a bunch of crap this action is. The exact same situation is occurring in Zimbabwe right now, and are we rushing off to “prevent a humanitarian crisis?” No we are not. They are not strategic and offer no oil.

  2. Interesting if rambling response. I am curious about what part of my article prompted this response:

    It seems foolish to me to try and draw the current situation as a specific performance failure of our president.

    I didn’t comment on a performance failure – I was pointing out that he engaged in an action that he had introduced a bill in Congress to denounce.

    Also, re: this comment

    Obama did not make this decision.

    He most certainly, as Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces of The United States did make this decision. Otherwise I agree with your comments. FB

  3. Actually, I have to disagree with this part as well

    That statement goes into history as one of the most ignorant, non-cooperative, immature, bully-idiotic effluvia ever heard from a president’s mouth. In that situation the objective was clear: maintain access to oil. Kill everyone who gets in the way. Pretend to support the people.

    We get most of our oil from Canada, Mexico and Venezuela. There was nothing about Iraq at the time of Operation Iraqui Freedom that was threatening our access to oil. It is so easy to say that and it is accepted as a truism. But the facts don’t support your statement. At the time they weren’t even being particularly belligerent. Whatever the reasons actually were for effecting regime change in Iraq, I suspect if the truth be known it was more a personal vendetta – a sort of Hatfields and McCoys feud only it was the Husseins and the Bushse. I read once long ago that some kind of hit had been put out by Saddam on George HW Bush and his family. I was never able to verify that – but I’ve always wondered.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s