"The law is not subject to the whims of stubborn rulers"- Senator Obama

[guido911]

But they do have the power to cut off funding for anything they damn well please, surely?

Then let them cut off funds. Just don't pass laws that restrict a president's power which is plainly expressed in the Constitution.

[Red Arrow]

Yeah, and you four are the half wits.

Do 4 half wits make 2 wits?

[Townsend]

Do 4 half wits make 2 wits?

There's the caboose.

[RecycleMichael]

I am a bit busy with a project, so I do not have the time to map out my entire legal basis for my opinion on the WPA. In a nutshell, I do not think Congress has any business interfering with the presidential power to use force to protect the country.

Thank you. When you have the time, start another thread on this.

The whole issue of when is the right time to use military force to protect the rest of the world from evil leaders of other countries is beyond me. I don't know why we are always the world's police force.

[Conan71]

Guys, could we please have a discussion without three out of five pages being nothing but insults and ad hominems.  The occasional gig is expected, but to seriously carry this on over a couple of pages is ridiculous.

Guido, quit baiting.  Townsend and Hoss, ignore the baiting.  Please.

[Townsend]

Guys, could we please have a discussion without three out of five pages being nothing but insults and ad hominems.  The occasional gig is expected, but to seriously carry this on over a couple of pages is ridiculous.

Guido, quit baiting.  Townsend and Hoss, ignore the baiting.  Please.

Agreed.  It's tough to invite decent contributors when the threads look like this.

I'll ignore him.

[Hoss]

Guys, could we please have a discussion without three out of five pages being nothing but insults and ad hominems.  The occasional gig is expected, but to seriously carry this on over a couple of pages is ridiculous.

Guido, quit baiting.  Townsend and Hoss, ignore the baiting.  Please.

Actually, the baiting started with Gas and the 'reach-around' comment, but I digress.  I'll ignore both for the time being.

[Townsend]

Actually, the baiting started with Gas and the 'reach-around' comment, but I digress.  I'll ignore both for the time being.

I was preemptively ignoring the other's existance in the political arena.

[Cats Cats Cats]

Guys, could we please have a discussion without three out of five pages being nothing but insults and ad hominems.  The occasional gig is expected, but to seriously carry this on over a couple of pages is ridiculous.

Guido, quit baiting.  Townsend and Hoss, ignore the baiting.  Please.

The reason why there were no serious replies is because this wasn't a serious post.  He might as well make threads upon threads with the subject and contents "Obama did something so its wrong".  Thats great.. He already posted this same thing in another thread.  We wouldn't be having this conversation if it was Bush or McCain.  The war powers act does state that anything over 60 days requires at least an authorization of force.  So by that it should be voted on.  Unless of course you claim that Al Qaeda is in Libya.  In which case force was already authroized under the AUMF Against Terrorists I would imagine.  I think an "authorization of force" should also have some sort of time frame as well.  Seems like over a decade in Iraq is a little more than an authorization of force and the WPA isn't exactly specific on anything.   

[guido911]

The reason why there were no serious replies is because this wasn't a serious post.

I disagree with that. This is a serious issue in that one GOP congressman and at least one nutcase on the left (Kucinich) are suing to have this statute enforced. The GOP-led House is demanding compliance. THE WPA is a Congressional overreach in my opinion, and the thought that our courts would inject itself in a political dispute/squabble is disturbing. The other thing is Obama's about-face from this position he took in 2007:

WASHINGTON –- President Barack Obama spoke passionately in 2007 about the need for Congress to challenge the Bush administration over violating the War Powers Act -- the very charge he is now facing from lawmakers in both parties over U.S. military involvement in Libya.

Back when Obama was a senator, he talked tough on the need for Congress to find "a backbone" and keep then-President George W. Bush in check regarding the legality of the Iraq War.

"We thought we learned this lesson," Obama said during remarks at DePaul University in October 2007.

"After Vietnam, Congress swore it would never again be duped into war, and even wrote a new law -- the War Powers Act -- to ensure it would not repeat its mistakes. But no law can force a Congress to stand up to the president. No law can make senators read the intelligence that showed the president was overstating the case for war. No law can give Congress a backbone if it refuses to stand up as the co-equal branch the Constitution made it."

Those sentiments are now being played out by some of Obama's biggest critics on Libya.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/15/kucinich-obama-war-powers-act-libya_n_877396.html

This, on top of his flip on the need to raise the debt ceiling, deserves to be pointed out.  

[Cats Cats Cats]

I disagree with that. This is a serious issue in that one GOP congressman and at least one nutcase on the left (Kucinich) are suing to have this statute enforced. The GOP-led House is demanding compliance. THE WPA is a Congressional overreach in my opinion, and the thought that our courts would inject itself in a political dispute/squabble is disturbing. The other thing is Obama's about-face from this position he took in 2007:


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/15/kucinich-obama-war-powers-act-libya_n_877396.html

This, on top of his flip on the need to raise the debt ceiling, deserves to be pointed out.  

I didn't say it wasn't a serious issue.  I said it wasn't a serious post (there is a difference).  This isn't Iraq (as many of you compare it to) but shouldn't necessarily be treated differently.  
said.  From another article

"We're not engaged in sustained fighting. There's been no exchange of fire with hostile forces. We don't have troops on the ground. We don't risk casualties to those troops," said one senior administration official, who briefed reporters on the condition of anonymity during a conference call arranged by the White House. "None of the factors, frankly, speaking more broadly, has risked the sort of escalation that Congress was concerned would impinge on its war-making power."

These are things that didn't exist when the war powers act was created.  Obviously the war powers act was in a reaction to Korea and Vietnam.  This is a new type of fighting that does cost money but doesn't necessarily cost lives.


And on the debt ceiling
Obama "thinks it was a mistake," presidential spokesman Jay Carney told reporters. "He realizes now that raising the debt ceiling is so important to the health of this economy and the global economy that it is not a vote that, even when you are protesting an administration's policies, you can play around with."

So he said he was wrong in voting against it.  What more do you want him to say?  I must admit that I as well see things differently than in 2006.  You had the Iraq war that was only going to last a couple of months according to Rumsfeld et al.  The economy was WAY better than today.  Given the economy today and the weakness of the global economy I do believe that this is a way bigger deal than in 2006.  Do you disagree?  Basically to not raise the debt ceiling is to force a balanced budget immediately. 

[guido911]

I didn't say it wasn't a serious issue.  I said it wasn't a serious post (there is a difference).  This isn't Iraq (as many of you compare it to) but shouldn't necessarily be treated differently.  
said.  From another article

"We're not engaged in sustained fighting. There's been no exchange of fire with hostile forces. We don't have troops on the ground. We don't risk casualties to those troops," said one senior administration official, who briefed reporters on the condition of anonymity during a conference call arranged by the White House. "None of the factors, frankly, speaking more broadly, has risked the sort of escalation that Congress was concerned would impinge on its war-making power."

These are things that didn't exist when the war powers act was created.  Obviously the war powers act was in a reaction to Korea and Vietnam.  This is a new type of fighting that does cost money but doesn't necessarily cost lives.


And on the debt ceiling
Obama "thinks it was a mistake," presidential spokesman Jay Carney told reporters. "He realizes now that raising the debt ceiling is so important to the health of this economy and the global economy that it is not a vote that, even when you are protesting an administration's policies, you can play around with."

So he said he was wrong in voting against it.  What more do you want him to say?  I must admit that I as well see things differently than in 2006.  You had the Iraq war that was only going to last a couple of months according to Rumsfeld et al.  The economy was WAY better than today.  Given the economy today and the weakness of the global economy I do believe that this is a way bigger deal than in 2006.  Do you disagree?  Basically to not raise the debt ceiling is to force a balanced budget immediately.  

I see the difference, but despite the flame war I have tried to discuss the issue. Disputes over whether the WPA should be invoked raged when Reagan invaded Grenada, when Bush I invaded Panama, and when Clinton got involved in the Balkans. This not a knew thing, and the size of the conflict is immaterial. It's more of a political tool used by the party out of power to saber rattle. Just another reason to throw this Act away.

As for the debt ceiling vote I know what Carney said, but here is what Obama said:

It was a political vote and had nothing to do with the excuses you set out. That's the reason why I brought it up.

[Gaspar]

The reason why there were no serious replies is because this wasn't a serious post.  He might as well make threads upon threads with the subject and contents "Obama did something so its wrong".  Thats great.. He already posted this same thing in another thread.  We wouldn't be having this conversation if it was Bush or McCain.  The war powers act does state that anything over 60 days requires at least an authorization of force.  So by that it should be voted on.  Unless of course you claim that Al Qaeda is in Libya.  In which case force was already authroized under the AUMF Against Terrorists I would imagine.  I think an "authorization of force" should also have some sort of time frame as well.  Seems like over a decade in Iraq is a little more than an authorization of force and the WPA isn't exactly specific on anything.   

War is the same as any large government program.  It is expensive and very hard to revoke.  I am in favor of ending all 4 of these useless and expensive conflicts.  The problem with implementing a time-frame is that you telegraph an opportunity for failure.

If the City of Detroit made an announcement that they were going to cut the police force by 75% on July 23, 2011, don't you think that the major criminal groups, gangs, Mexican cartels, mob bosses, and serial bank robbers, and rappers rapists would mark their calendars (so to speak)?

When you enter into a conflict your goal is victory by the fastest means possible.  Not victory on July 23rd.

Sure it is necessary to set up milestones with objective dates, but that is an internal matter.  To provide the enemy with an envelope for your retreat is insane.  You want them to think that your merciless attacks against their aggression will go on forever unless they surrender or are killed.   You have to make surrender the only reasonable option.  To provide a mission termination date gives the enemy new options.

I am no general or military strategist, and I may be missing some advantage in issuing a withdraw date, but I can't think of what it is.  You should never deploy military force unless victory is your objective.  In my opinion this means you should never deploy military force unless the imminent safety of the nation is at stake.  That logic renders most of our recent actions illegitimate. 

[Cats Cats Cats]

I see the difference, but despite the flame war I have tried to discuss the issue. Disputes over whether the WPA should be invoked raged when Reagan invaded Grenada, when Bush I invaded Panama, and when Clinton got involved in the Balkans. This not a knew thing, and the size of the conflict is immaterial. It's more of a political tool used by the party out of power to saber rattle. Just another reason to throw this Act away.

As for the debt ceiling vote I know what Carney said, but here is what Obama said:

It was a political vote and had nothing to do with the excuses you set out. That's the reason why I brought it up.

I can't find any specifics from anybody on why they voted against it.  A politician saying they did it for politics isn't a very descriptive answer.  I assume you are saying the politics of blowing through our surplus?

[Cats Cats Cats]

War is the same as any large government program.  It is expensive and very hard to revoke.  I am in favor of ending all 4 of these useless and expensive conflicts.  The problem with implementing a time-frame is that you telegraph an opportunity for failure.

If the City of Detroit made an announcement that they were going to cut the police force by 75% on July 23, 2011, don't you think that the major criminal groups, gangs, Mexican cartels, mob bosses, and serial bank robbers, and rappers rapists would mark their calendars (so to speak)?

When you enter into a conflict your goal is victory by the fastest means possible.  Not victory on July 23rd.

Sure it is necessary to set up milestones with objective dates, but that is an internal matter.  To provide the enemy with an envelope for your retreat is insane.  You want them to think that your merciless attacks against their aggression will go on forever unless they surrender or are killed.   You have to make surrender the only reasonable option.  To provide a mission termination date gives the enemy new options.

I am no general or military strategist, and I may be missing some advantage in issuing a withdraw date, but I can't think of what it is.  You should never deploy military force unless victory is your objective.  In my opinion this means you should never deploy military force unless the imminent safety of the nation is at stake.  That logic renders most of our recent actions illegitimate. 

Sometimes your goal is the most money possible.  We already did some pulling out of Iraq and actually gave a date.  Was that horrible?  I haven't heard much about Iraq recently.