How now?

Post #380,555 by hnick 9/13/13 6:13:35 AM Reply	How now? Here's hoping that Putin isn't stupid enough to believe the yammering in the press over here about how Obama is so weak and so forth... Has not the central point of your impassioned defense of the first lout been that he's only the president and not an absolute ruler? I mean, really, he hasn't had the votes to change his underwear in three and a half years. The poor fellow is as helpless as a newborn baby bereft of cradle and tit. He certainly can't do anything for the majority that voted for him. A few bankers may have the votes...
Post #380,561 by Another Scott 9/13/13 7:36:49 AM Reply	See my reply to Peter. But to be more specific... Obama claims he didn't have to go to Congress to act. I think he said that to preserve the President's capacity to act quickly in extreme situations without explicit approval of Congress. But he also said in his address a couple of days ago that he thought Congress should give their advice and have a vote in this case since (roughly) "there isn't an immediate and direct threat to the US". I don't think there's a contradiction in holding those views simultaneously. Congress needs to do its job and give its views on war and peace. But in some future time, that may not be practical or wise. I think Obama is always looking at the long-term. He means what he says when he says that he doesn't want a world where CWs become easier to use. He wants them gone. (Just as he wants nuclear weapons gone - something that lots of people have forgotten.) Obama has been clear, to me at least, about his views on big-picture topics. He said he was going to get bin Laden. He said he would go into any country without their approval if necessary to do so. When the generals and the chattering classes were saying that we had to stay in Iraq, he said no. He said CWs were a red line that would change his calculus about Syria. On these war-and-peace topics, he means what he says. Has he and Kerry messed up their messaging on the Russia negotiations, etc.? Maybe. But on the big picture, he's been clear. Putin needs to understand that. We'll see how it turns out. Cheers, Scott.
Post #380,611 by Ashton 9/13/13 6:50:15 PM Reply	I too retain adequate-'faith' in his Character There is no calculus by which we can comprehend the stultifying effects of the Renegade-Repo collection of sociopaths.. -VS- any possibilities of governance whatsoever. Accordingly, I see it as a cheap-shot to compare BHO's 'success record'--with any previous situation. It is not just the $bankruptcy, via criminal gaming of the Entire Finance bloc-of-greedheads; what has successfully immobilized all sanity in the US is: Our National moral, spiritual and other bankruptcies as have spawned a Winner-take-All, Fuck-you-I've-got-Mine collection of anti-social misfits: The US long ago became the Anti-social-Society, disguising the inculcated absence of any sincere capability for empathy as --'rugged individualism'==Good; social regard, cooperation==Weakness. (If we have any 'Presidential-grade' candidates available to replace Obama -??- they must be well-hidden--as in some survivalist's root cellar) --with the guns, ammo and undrinkable Murican beer-like liquids. Meanwhile, as the unravelling intensifies and the Hate-filled epithets increase in loudness proportional-to-their-vacuity, I'll trust BHO over anyone standing-in-the-wings. He Is the best shot we have of getting out of this mode of Pure-seppuku-outcome: one which we may just Not-survive (whatever he does/doesn't do next.) Our corruption is so vast in extent/in depth/in its Viciousness (and banality: Collect Everything and hoard it is a 2 yo's Dream, having nothing to do with Adulthood) that--We Flunked. By all measures opposite to that 'Success' chimera. Half +/- of all Muricans 'below the poverty level'? While tens of $B are still spent regularly by Koch et al: on propaganda to preserve the status-quo?? qed Carrion
Post #380,614 by CRConrad 9/13/13 7:38:23 PM Reply	I don't see how he can have it both ways. SKott: Obama claims he didn't have to go to Congress to act. I think he said that to preserve the President's capacity to act quickly in extreme situations without explicit approval of Congress. But he also said in his address a couple of days ago that he thought Congress should give their advice and have a vote in this case since (roughly) "there isn't an immediate and direct threat to the US". Isn't the President's conditional power to start bellicose action predicated precisely on there being "an immediate and direct threat to the US"? Either there was, and then he couldn't have had the time to consult Congress; or there wasn't, and then he would have to go to Congress to act. Sure, perhaps one could come up with some reason why he wouldn't have to consult them but still could do so, but this doesn't seem like a logically defensible case of such. -- Christian R. Conrad Same old username (as above), but now on iki.fi (Yeah, yeah, it redirects to the same old GMail... But just in case I ever want to change.)
Post #380,622 by Another Scott 9/13/13 9:04:30 PM Reply	It goes back to the War Powers Resolution http://en.wikipedia....Powers_Resolution The War Powers Resolution requires the President to notify Congress within 48 hours of committing armed forces to military action and forbids armed forces from remaining for more than 60 days, with a further 30 day withdrawal period, without an authorization of the use of military force or a declaration of war. The resolution was passed by two-thirds of Congress, overriding a presidential veto. It has been alleged that the War Powers Resolution has been violated in the past, for example, by President Clinton in 1999, during the bombing campaign in Kosovo. All incidents have had congressional disapproval, but none have had any successful legal actions taken against the president for alleged violations.[2] Presidents don't like even that restriction, but there's enough wiggle-room in it that they pay lip-service to it. FWIW. Cheers, Scott.
Post #380,627 by Ashton 9/13/13 11:31:07 PM Reply	Operative words here, 'in this case' are not weasel-words as Scott has described. At very least (until War Powers Act were to be revisited..) he was signifying that he could afford to wait in this case --whereas in some.. next.. case, maybe not so much. He didn't Have-to wait, and I expect that any other or next CIEIO would have phrased such a matter ~the same way. Nothing to do with 'BHO vacillating', IMO.

Welcome to IWETHEY!