Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The ambassador to the UN, like all ambassadors, are appointed by and take directions from the executive branch. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton attended the Paris conference discussing intervention. she, too, takes directions from the President.
Quote:
I thought that he was "leading from behind" on that while deliberately avoiding a vote in the US Congress, as he was afraid to appear before congress and make his case publicly and have it be open to debate.
Well, let me refresh your memory.
Here's an excerpt from US Senate resolution S. RES. 85, passed unanimously on March 1st:
Quote:
Resolved, That the Senate--
...
(5) welcomes the unanimous vote of the United Nations Security Council on resolution 1970 referring the situation in Libya to the International Criminal Court, imposing an arms embargo on the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, freezing the assets of Gadhafi and family members, and banning international travel by Gadhafi, members of his family, and senior advisors;
...
(7) urges the United Nations Security Council to take such further action as may be necessary to protect civilians in Libya from attack, including the possible imposition of a no-fly zone over Libyan territory;
Of course, when intervention actually took place and didn't end up in a quagmire that they could rub the President's nose in, the good Republican senators suddenly decided to make noise about the War Powers Act. Couldn't be seen to agree with the President.
That is to say, until Rand Paul - who's an ass, but at times a principled one - introduced a resolution on the Senate floor forcing them to put their money where their mouth had been. (One wonders why he voted for the resolution I quoted above, but according to his staff, that was a different sort of vote and so shouldn't really count. No, I am not making this up.)
Rand Paul's resolution was of course soundly defeated, with only 9 Republican Senators and Rand Paul himself voting in favor. So it's kind of hard to tell where the Republicans actually stand on the Libya thing, except for their current default mode - "Whatever the President is doing is wrong. Unless it's successful, in which case it was actually our idea."
Simply saying we need to do all necessary means to protect civilians is nothing new.
In what particular world is that? Having a UNSC resolution authorizing military intervention makes a pretty significant difference in diplomatic terms, which is what we're talking about here.
I know it's fun to pretend that the executive branch needs to get a filibuster-proof majority before doing anything (except if the President has an R after his name, of course), but it's simply not the case.
Romney already has a war on women, gays, Latinos, children, the elderly and dogs going on. Should it surprise anyone that he wants a war with Iranians as well?
Actually, Ron Paul was on TV the day the US got involved in Libya without congress consent and did make comments that it was illegal. A few other Republican and Democratic members of congress also said the same thing that very day on TV.
"Some Democratic lawmakers — including Representatives Jerrold Nadler of New York, Barbara Lee of California and Michael E. Capuano of Massachusetts — complained in a House Democratic Caucus conference call as the bombing began that Mr. Obama had exceeded his constitutional authority by authorizing the attack without Congressional permission.
That sentiment was echoed by several Republican lawmakers — including Senators Richard G. Lugar of Indiana and Rand Paul of Kentucky and Representative Roscoe G. Bartlett of Maryland — as well as in editorials and columns published over the weekend and on Monday in conservative opinion outlets like the Washington Times editorial page and National Review."
“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.” -Candidate Obama
Libya posed no imminent threat to the nation - if it did, Obama did not make that case. President Obama is once again at odds with Candidate Obama.
And Obama's supporters care nothing about the hypocrisy.
Actually, Ron Paul was on TV the day the US got involved in Libya without congress consent and did make comments that it was illegal. A few other Republican and Democratic members of congress also said the same thing that very day on TV.
"Some Democratic lawmakers — including Representatives Jerrold Nadler of New York, Barbara Lee of California and Michael E. Capuano of Massachusetts — complained in a House Democratic Caucus conference call as the bombing began that Mr. Obama had exceeded his constitutional authority by authorizing the attack without Congressional permission.
That sentiment was echoed by several Republican lawmakers — including Senators Richard G. Lugar of Indiana and Rand Paul of Kentucky and Representative Roscoe G. Bartlett of Maryland — as well as in editorials and columns published over the weekend and on Monday in conservative opinion outlets like the Washington Times editorial page and National Review."
“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.” -Candidate Obama
Libya posed no imminent threat to the nation - if it did, Obama did not make that case. President Obama is once again at odds with Candidate Obama.
And Obama's supporters care nothing about the hypocrisy.
I join with about 90% of my fellow Americans in saying, "Screw Congress!".
Of course it will take decades to fix only because Romneys economic plans stink too
Romney hasnt begun to discuss his economic plans in detail yet. So if you are saying this, you arent listening to the source, just repeating left wing talking points.
Quote:
Originally Posted by trlhiker
No but he has stated that he has no problem going to war with Iran which should scare most sane people.
Presidents shouldnt have a problem going to war with our enemies.
In what particular world is that? Having a UNSC resolution authorizing military intervention makes a pretty significant difference in diplomatic terms, which is what we're talking about here.
Bush had that, but you guys criticized him to no end
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dane_in_LA
I know it's fun to pretend that the executive branch needs to get a filibuster-proof majority before doing anything (except if the President has an R after his name, of course), but it's simply not the case.
Now you're defending Romneys position because thats what he said.
I join with about 90% of my fellow Americans in saying, "Screw Congress!".
Almost 90% of Americans are upset with congress - I am too.
That doesn't mean that 90% of Americans want the president to be able to use military force without congressional approval or to even try to get congressional approval. Even Candidate Obama said that was illegal to thunderous applause. Now that President Obama has done just that, the sheep thunderously applaud that!
Actually, Ron Paul was on TV the day the US got involved in Libya without congress consent and did make comments that it was illegal. A few other Republican and Democratic members of congress also said the same thing that very day on TV.
I apologize, I should've made clear that the resolution was passed in the Senate only, not the House. There were definitely Representatives who could speak up with a clear conscience.
Quote:
“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.” -Candidate Obama
He scr.wed up on that one. It's not in line with precedent nor, as far as I can tell, the Constitution itself.
The executive branch can order the troops out, but the legislative branch holds the pursestrings - it was pretty much always thus. Predates the US Constitution by centuries.
Of course, every opposition party has been waving around the War Powers Act since time immemorial (well, OK - since its passing) - but nobody wants to use it. Mostly because it'd immediately lead to a challenge of it as unconstitutional, and there's a good chance it is.
Bush had that, but you guys criticized him to no end
Yes. Iraq was a thoroughly stupid war, based on poor intelligence (both definitions) and the only reason it was ever authorized was due to a groundswell of misdirected anger after the 9/11 attacks. The sales job done on the war with Iraq was incredibly competent. Remember when it was disloyal to disagree with the President in wartime? (As for exactly what Congress authorized as opposed to what was carried out, that's another story.) If Bush's administration hadn't pushed for their boondoggle, Congress wouldn't have, either. As it happened, they did, we got Desert W. Storm, found bugger-all in the way of WMD and then the GWB administration went on to pretty much work their way through all the conventional way you can screw up an occupation, adding a few self-invented ones along the way.
Quote:
Now you're defending Romneys position because thats what he said.
He's right - the President can order military action. Doesn't change the fact taking military action against Iran is another utterly boneheaded move. Nor the fact that it's really goddamn unprofessional for a candidate for the Presidency to talk about it off-handedly. (I guess we should be happy he wasn't singing about it to a Beach Boys tune. Baby steps.)
If Romney wanted to argue a procedural point, he probably shouldn't have brought up war with Iran.
Last edited by Dane_in_LA; 06-19-2012 at 10:33 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
