I don't see how he can have it both ways.

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!