home

"The President Has No Power To Declare A War"

By the Constitution, Congress alone has the power to declare a national or foreign war. [. . .T]he President [. . .] has no power to initiate or declare a war either against a foreign nation or a domestic State. - The Prize Cases

One of the more bizarre aspects of the Obama Administration's arguments regarding the non-applicability of the War Powers Resolution to American involvement in the Libya conflict is the blithe dismissal of the fact that the Constitution does not authorize the President to engage the Nation in war at all. Consider Jack Goldsmith's reaction to the Administration's arguments:

The administrationís theory implies that the president can wage war with drones and all manner of offshore missiles without having to bother with the War Powers Resolutionís time limits[.]

How about without regard to the Constitution? Of course, this is not new, see (in recent history, see Panama, Grenada.) But it is sad that no seems to even give a passing thought about the Constitution on this issue. More . . .

At first, the Obama Administration argued that the involvement in Libya was not a war because "its anticipated nature, scope and duration fell short of a 'war' in the constitutional sense." that was when the involvment was "humanitarian in nature. Whatever the merits of that argument, they seem to disappear when NATO made the aims of the intervention the toppling of the Ghaddafi regime:

Since then, the conflict has dragged on for longer than expected, and the goal of the NATO allies has all but openly shifted from merely defending civilians to forcing the Libyan leader, Colonel Qaddafi, from power.

In NewSpeak worthy of Orwell, the Obama Administration has an answer for this:

Mr. Koh and Mr. Bauer said that while regime change in Libya might be a diplomatic goal, the militaryís mission was separate and remained limited to protecting civilians.

'Who you gonna believe me or your lyin eyes?' seems to be the Obama Administration argument on this point. You don't protect civilians by bombing Tripoli.

In any event, it is truly bizarre that for all the discussion of the War Powers Resolution, only a statute after all, the Constitution itself appears to have been forgotten.

Speaking for me only

< DA Files Disclosure of Evidence Against Dominque Strauss-Kahn Filing: | It was 40 Years Ago Today and Friday Night Open Thread >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Disturbing power grab (5.00 / 6) (#1)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Jun 17, 2011 at 09:54:02 AM EST
    As the globe on its present course becomes more crowded and angry, it is dangerous to have no checks and balances on a President's war making authority.

    It is - and if it takes a Republican congress (5.00 / 7) (#3)
    by ruffian on Fri Jun 17, 2011 at 09:59:44 AM EST
    checking the power of a Dem president to at least slow the trend, then so be it.

    I'm under no illusions about their hypocrisy in doing so, but I'll take it.

    Parent

    Yes indeed (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Fri Jun 17, 2011 at 10:58:28 PM EST
    .

    We are indisputably committing acts of war against Libya.  If anyone thinks otherwise, they need to explain why that if another country were doing the same to us why it would not be war.

    .

    Parent

    Exactly (none / 0) (#78)
    by ruffian on Sat Jun 18, 2011 at 10:37:43 AM EST
    Civilians are being protected so well there (5.00 / 3) (#2)
    by ruffian on Fri Jun 17, 2011 at 09:55:05 AM EST
    is a huge refugee problem.

    The NewSpeak is genuinely crazy-making.

    Orwellian to the max... (5.00 / 4) (#4)
    by kdog on Fri Jun 17, 2011 at 10:01:18 AM EST
    Using the same newspeak dictionary as G-Dub...disappointing but not unexpected.  This country has no party of peace, only war.

    Seems like the president can kill anybody they want these days as long as the term applied to by the legal team it isn't "war".  Torture anybody they want as long as the term applied isn't "torture". Loopholes galore. Sh*t...Vietnam wasn't a war legally speaking...it's a f*ckin' joke.

    I'm Trying to Frigure... (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Jun 17, 2011 at 10:31:36 AM EST
    ... out how to mix the War on Drugs into this pile of steaming DS.

    The problem isn't war, it's the scumbags we elect playing semantics with terms like war, presidential powers, or basically any wording in the Constitution they don't find to their liking.

    The Constitution has become a bible in which whatever the reader believes can be found and twisted to miraculously fit their agenda.  It's real meaning, like the Bible's, is of no consequence.

    Boehner is only doing this to spite Obama, but if that's what it takes, I am on board.  Let's get right to define what powers the President has when a Democrat is filling that position.  Get it into law, or writing, or something that will stick because I for one am tired of these idiots playing games with our laws.

    Parent

    Not that simple I'm afraid... (none / 0) (#18)
    by kdog on Fri Jun 17, 2011 at 11:28:48 AM EST
    Boehner and Brand R want to spite Obama and Brand D, while at the same time not limit the powers of the next Brand R president...so they'll talk a good game but do nothing to limit the powers of the office of the presidency.

    Nothing sticks when you're dealing with the human teflon we call pols...all rules are subject to twisted interpretations, or are free to be igonored under the "different rules different fools" clause.


    Parent

    Only one brand ... (5.00 / 0) (#20)
    by Robot Porter on Fri Jun 17, 2011 at 11:40:37 AM EST
    for those folks.  Brand P for power.

    We get a brand too.  Brand S for slave.

    Parent

    Or Sucker (5.00 / 0) (#41)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Jun 17, 2011 at 02:04:58 PM EST
    Or.... (none / 0) (#45)
    by kdog on Fri Jun 17, 2011 at 02:16:41 PM EST
    Subsidizer...but I guess slave and sucker both cover that angle.

    Parent
    Right on target (none / 0) (#31)
    by republicratitarian on Fri Jun 17, 2011 at 12:50:48 PM EST
    Both sides of the isle talk a good game until they are in power, then it's all about protecting the power of the government. There don't seem to be a whole lot of checks and balances on government power anymore.

    Parent
    There (5.00 / 6) (#5)
    by lentinel on Fri Jun 17, 2011 at 10:04:59 AM EST
    is no hope of Obama being thrown out of office for this kind of disrespect for the constitution.

    Obama studiously avoided going after Bush and Cheney for their blatant crimes against the constitution and the American people.

    This is why.

    These corrupt politicians protect each other.

    but, but, but... (5.00 / 2) (#7)
    by Dadler on Fri Jun 17, 2011 at 10:29:14 AM EST
    ...there's no way we should know better.

    Seriously, when it comes to war, the Constitution is generally just a urinal.

    When it comes to ... (5.00 / 0) (#16)
    by Robot Porter on Fri Jun 17, 2011 at 11:18:20 AM EST
    most things really.  Not just war.

    Parent
    Now that we've allegedly stopped (5.00 / 3) (#9)
    by Anne on Fri Jun 17, 2011 at 10:35:59 AM EST
    torturing people, it's time we stopped torturing the language so that presidents can justify waging war as long as they have someone on staff who can find new ways to define it and new labels to describe it; golly, it must just be so cool to know that, as president, you have the power to do whatever you want with the able assistance of a bunch of John Yoo clones.  Or is that clowns?  Clowns can be scary, right?

    This country looks more like an empire every day, with not just the people being irrelevant, but increasingly, the Congress; it's all well and good to have checks and balances, but if they aren't implemented, if no one cares, what's the point?

    At this stage of the game, I don't care that the Republicans have ulterior motives, I'm sure, in holding Obama's feet to the fire, that have nothing to do with being opposed to war  - someone's got to do it.

    Really too bad that, when we had the opportunity to draw some lines in the sand, Nancy Pelosi and the Democratic leadership decided it was too distracting and not important enough, which I translated as "you know, if we go after them, it's going to come out just how compliant and complicit we were in what went down, so we'd better just take this off the table."  Barack Obama decided he wasn't going to hold Bush/Cheney accountable for their actions, either - hey, he might need some of that executive authority, so why take the chance he'd lose it, right?

    The whole lot of them make me sick.

    The president has unlimited power (5.00 / 2) (#23)
    by MO Blue on Fri Jun 17, 2011 at 11:52:01 AM EST
    to do everything but enact good domestic policies that help the lower 98%. There he and the Dems are completely powerless.

    I feel the same way about this:


    The whole lot of them make me sick.

    Parent
    Sorry to bring up (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by BackFromOhio on Fri Jun 17, 2011 at 01:17:14 PM EST
    another issue, but I think the stance of the Dem 'leadership' as you describe it is why Weiner was routed from office - he was too outspoken.

    Parent
    Weiner (none / 0) (#49)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Fri Jun 17, 2011 at 03:58:18 PM EST
    was driven from office because he lied and he was turning into a huge distraction.

    If he hadn't sent pics to people and lied about it, he'd be happily promoting dem ideas right now.

    No one to blame but himself, no matter how unfair it is.  He knows the rules of the game. They all do.  Hate the rules? Play another game.

    Parent

    Dem. rules--for some. Lieberman (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by oculus on Fri Jun 17, 2011 at 04:00:08 PM EST
    speaks at GOP convention, is an "I", and still holds the committee chairs he held as a "D".  

    Parent
    Thanks (none / 0) (#51)
    by BackFromOhio on Fri Jun 17, 2011 at 04:26:42 PM EST
    Oculus

    Parent
    i hate to break this to you, (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by cpinva on Fri Jun 17, 2011 at 04:42:54 PM EST
    but politicians lie all the time, about important (see: bush, g.w.: pre-emptive invasion of iraq: wmd's) and not so important things (see: clinton, w.j.: bj from an adult not intern), and become "distractions to their party". if that's the bar, no politician, at any level, would ever serve out their full term.

    unlike bush's, neither clinton's or weiner's lies resulted in the deaths/wounding of 1,000's, and the expenditure of billions of defecit dollars.

    Parent

    Pass the Glue (none / 0) (#14)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Jun 17, 2011 at 11:13:57 AM EST
    I mean seriously, a Republican Speaker of the House declaring a Democratic President doesn't have the authority to bomb Libya.  

    I feel like I have been sniffing glue, what used to be up is now down.  Obama is basically doing what their Messiah did in '86, and isn't war suppose to be their thing, now, not so much.

    Is nothing sacred in politics, republicans are suppose to get h..dons over bombing Libya and Pakistan.

    Then a Democrat President playing shell games with the meaning of the word 'war' while the country is tossing the poor in the garbage so we can essentially sustain 3 global wars and tax cuts for the rich.

    That's what I was taught republicans do, democrats are suppose to fight for social justice and republicans fight wars.  Now I don't know, who is doing what and who I am suppose to choose, they all are starting to resemble the same unsavory character.

    Parent

    And yet many so-called ... (5.00 / 4) (#10)
    by Robot Porter on Fri Jun 17, 2011 at 10:36:56 AM EST
    "liberals" scoffed when it was suggested that Libya would be yet another "endless war".  That was ridiculous.  This was a limited mission.  It would be over in days or at most weeks.  Months later ...

    The way you stop the administration from engaging in unconstitutional wars, is stop them engaging in wars ... period.

    Of course, our overlords think we're more concerned about randy members of congress than illegal wars.  Maybe we are.  But I doubt it.  

    Kinetic Action, wasn't it? No hostilities or war, (none / 0) (#82)
    by jawbone on Sun Jun 19, 2011 at 12:46:04 PM EST
    Just "kinetic action."

    Oops, Gates called it a "limited kinetic action."

    Speaking today on 60 Minutes, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates denied that the US was actually "at war" with Libya, saying he prefers to think of it as a "limited kinetic action" against Libya.

    At the same time, Gates conceded that if he was "in Gadhafi's shoes" he would think of it as a war. [Duh!] The comments come two months after a UN resolution which authorized a "no-fly zone" that directly led to US and French attacks on Libya. (My emphasis)

    A little while ago it was not a war because it didn't rise to the level of hostilities....

    Well, Ok then...heh.


    Parent

    Don't you love that word "kinetic" (none / 0) (#86)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jun 20, 2011 at 08:21:52 AM EST
    It is all over the military right now.  I don't kid myself about what our military does.  Our military is funded for and trains daily to kill people as efficiently as possible.  This is a skill that is needed when people are trying to kill you.

    But kinetic is the new word to use when you don't want to talk about the killing part.  A limited kinetic action is when you have an early appointment so you must cut your morning jog in half....or when you decide you must do some regime change :)

    Parent

    if congress were really serious about this, (5.00 / 2) (#17)
    by cpinva on Fri Jun 17, 2011 at 11:25:04 AM EST
    they could stop it in a heartbeat, by simply denying the funding necessary for the president/military to continue their actions in libya, or anywhere else.

    that no member of this august body has suggested such legislation tells me they just like to see their names in the paper.

    No one complained about Reagan? (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by Dadler on Fri Jun 17, 2011 at 11:32:10 AM EST
    Okay.  I seem to remember protesting in college, as well as my next door neighbor, and exchange student from Libya, weeping intensely.

    Your point is noted, but you are assuming that good outcomes are always the result of foreign interventions.  Not exactly a historical certainty.  In fact, it's usually a recipe for a worse disaster.  How many people did we slaughter in Iraq so they could be "free" from their dictator?  We will never know because we don't give a sh*t enough about civilians to even count them.

    Sadly, we don't possess a military genuinely capable of that mission.  Probably never will.  If we evolved to that point of humanity, we wouldn't need a military.


    Uh, Bush never said (none / 0) (#58)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jun 17, 2011 at 06:18:34 PM EST
    Hussein had purchased yellow cake.

    Parent
    You're parsing weasel words (none / 0) (#63)
    by Zorba on Fri Jun 17, 2011 at 06:39:30 PM EST
    What Bush said:  "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."

    2003 State of the Union Address

    Parent

    Yes, that is what he said. (none / 0) (#72)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jun 17, 2011 at 11:37:34 PM EST
    But accurately quoting is not parsing.

    Now, what happened?

     

    Mayaki said, however, that in June 1999,(                    ) businessman, approached him and insisted that Mayaki meet with an Iraqi delegation to discuss "expanding commercial relations" between Niger and Iraq. The intelligence report said that Mayaki interpreted "expanding commercial relations" to mean that the delegation wanted to discuss uranium yellowcake sales.

    What did Wilson tell the CIA?

    The CIA's DO gave the former ambassador's information a grade of "good,"....The reports officer said that a "good" grade was merited because the information responded to at least some of the outstanding questions .....He said he judged that the most important fact in the report was that the Nigerien officials admitted that the Iraqi delegation had traveled there in 1999, and that the Nigerien Prime Minister believed the Iraqis were interested in purchasing uranium, because this provided some confirmation of foreign government service reporting

    Link

    Parent

    I know you wouldn't want to mislead ... (5.00 / 0) (#80)
    by Yman on Sat Jun 18, 2011 at 06:13:18 PM EST
    ... anyone, so to clarify, Joe Wilson did not tell anyone that Iraq purchased (or was trying to purchase) yellowcake.  In fact, Wilson returned skeptical of the yellowcake allegations and reported that it was unlikely that anything was going on re: a sale of yellowcake.  After Wilson's debrief, the case officer sent his draft to the DO, who added information from his notes.  It was this report that was rated as "good", because this report addressed at least some of the outstanding questions.  The report also noted "how the structure of Niger's uranium mines would make it difficult, if not impossible, for Niger to ell uranium to any rogue states."

    But your sudden interest in accurate quotation is duly noted ...  :)

    Parent

    What Wilson did say was this (1.00 / 0) (#85)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jun 19, 2011 at 01:12:03 PM EST
    Then, in January, President Bush, citing the British dossier, repeated the charges about Iraqi efforts to buy uranium from Africa.

    The next day, I reminded a friend at the State Department of my trip and suggested that if the president had been referring to Niger, then his conclusion was not borne out by the facts as I understood them. He replied that perhaps the president was speaking about one of the other three African countries that produce uranium: Gabon, South Africa or Namibia. At the time, I accepted the explanation. I didn't know that in December, a month before the president's address, the State Department had published a fact sheet that mentioned the Niger case.

    NY Times article

    That appears to a dispute of Bush's statement that Iraq had tried to purchase yellowcake.

    And it appears to be a contradiction to what he had previously told the CIA and what the ex-Premier had said.

    Later that day, two CIA DO officers debriefed the former ambassador who had returned from Niger the previous day......

    The intelligence report based on the former ambassador's trip was disseminated on March 8, 2002.....

    The intelligence report .....The former ambassador told Committee staff that he met with the former Nigerien Prime Minister, the former Minister of Mines and Energy, and other business contacts....

    Mayaki said, however, that in June 1999,(                    ) businessman, approached him and insisted that Mayaki meet with an Iraqi delegation to discuss "expanding commercial relations" between Niger and Iraq. ..... Mayaki interpreted "expanding commercial relations" to mean that the delegation wanted to discuss uranium yellowcake sales.

    <snip>

    When the former ambassador spoke to Committee staff, his description of his findings differed from the DO intelligence report and his account of information provided to him by the CIA differed from the CIA officials' accounts in some respects.
    ....as refuting both the possibility that Niger could have sold uranium to Iraq and that Iraq approached Niger to purchase uranium.

    So, was he correct in 2/2002 or later? Was he confused? And if so, when? And we have this.

    The CIA's DO gave the former ambassador's information a grade of "good,"..... He said he judged that the most important fact in the report was that the Nigerien officials admitted that the Iraqi delegation had traveled there in 1999, and that the Nigerien Prime Minister believed the Iraqis were interested in purchasing uranium, because this provided some confirmation of foreign government service reporting.

    Link

    Perhaps the saddest thing about all of this is that many people, as Saul1 wrote, think that Bush claimed by Iraq had purchased yellowcake. That is totally incorrect. Yet, it has become an Urban Legend.

    And, of no less concern to those interested in the truth, Wilson's NY Times op ed in which he disputes Bush's statement was more fuel to the flame of anti-war activity that led to a SP and led to Lewis Libby being convicted.....

    .....of being confused, not remembering...

    One of life's little irony's.

    Parent

    Wilson was correct and consistent (5.00 / 0) (#87)
    by Yman on Mon Jun 20, 2011 at 09:24:57 AM EST
     - both times.  The contradiction is between Wilson's report and the DO intelligence officer's report, not Wilson's own statements.  Your issue is conflating Wilson's conclusions and statements following his Niger trip with the CIA report which, while including Wilson's information, included other information and reached different conclusions than Wilson.  of course, maybe that's the reason for your repeated use of the "appears" qualifier - always a big, red flag.

    Wilson reported (of course) his conversation with Mayaki, but Mayaki's interpretation the Iraqi delegate's interest in "expanding commercial relations" was Mayaki's, not Wilson's.  The CIA interpreted this information (the Iraqi delegation trip and Mayaki's interpretation of the "expanding commercial interests" statement) as confirmation of their suspicions of an attempt to purchase yellowcake.  Wilson did not.

    BTW - Actually, the "saddest thing" about all of this" was Bush's decision to push the yellowcake issue (among many other dubious claims) to sell the American people on the need to go to war in Iraq.  From the Senate Intelligence Report:

    "A 4 October 2002 draft of a Presidential speech asserted that "the regime (Iraq) has been caught attempting to purchase up to 500 metric tons of uranium oxide from Africa -- an essential ingredient in the enrichment process." The CIA objected, asking that the sentence be removed because "the amount is in dispute and it is debatable whether it can be acquired from the source. We told Congress that the Brits have exaggerated this issue. Finally, the Iraqis already have 550 metric tons of uranium oxide in their inventory."

    On 6 October 2002, the CIA elaborated on why the sentence should be removed:

        The evidence is weak ...The procurement is not particularly significant to Iraq's nuclear ambitions because the Iraqis already have a large stock of uranium oxide in their inventory ... and we have shared points one and two with Congress, telling them the Africa story is overblown and telling them this one of the two issues where we differed with the British.

    But, .... when you have a war to sell ...

    Hence the reason you need to use qualifiers (i.e.

    Parent

    The questions are (none / 0) (#88)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jun 20, 2011 at 11:59:49 AM EST
    Where did the information about Mayaki's belief come from?? Are you saying that the intelligence officer just made it up? No, he did not, and I think you agree.

    In an interview with Committee staff, the former ambassador was able to provide more information about the meeting between former Prime Minister Mayaki and the Iraqi delegation. The former ambassador said that Mayaki did meet with the Iraqi delegation but never discussed what was meant by "expanding commercial relations."

    When the former ambassador spoke to Committee staff, his description of his findings differed from the DO intelligence report and his account of information provided to him by the CIA differed from the CIA officials' accounts in some respects. First, the former ambassador described his findings to Committee staff as more directly related to Iraq and, specifically, as refuting both the possibility that Niger could have sold uranium to Iraq and that Iraq approached Niger to purchase uranium

    So now we have the hinge. Wilson met with Mayaki. And since the subject was Niger possibly selling yellow cake the subject had to have been discussed.

    Now, note the clever incomplete statement by Wilson. He said Mayaki did meet with the Iraqi delegation. He said Mayaki never discussed what was meant by "expanding commercial relations." But he doesn't mention Mayaki's beliefs that he had obviously previously told the CIA in the early 2/2002 debrief... those beliefs were that Iraq wanted to buy yellow cake.

    Why did Wilson leave that out? Did he forget? Was he confused?  

    And what evidence did he have that Mayaki was wrong???

    He must have had some because he went to see some old friends at state, declared that Bush was wrong and wrote an op ed that inflamed the debate.

    I mean he did have some evidence......didn't he?

    The former ambassador also told Committee staff that he was the source of a Washington Post article ("CIA Did Not Share Doubt on Iraq Data; Bush Used Report of Uranium Bid," June 12, 2003) which said, "among the Envoy's conclusions was that the documents may have been forged because `the dates were wrong and the names were wrong." Committee staff asked how the former ambassador could have come to the conclusion that the "dates were wrong and the names were wrong" when he had never seen the CIA reports and had no knowledge of what names and dates were in the reports.

    I think it time for a pregnant pause if this was a movie.

    . The former ambassador said that he may have "misspoken" to the reporter when he said he concluded the documents were "forged." He also said he may have become confused about his own recollection after the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) reported in March 2003 that the names and dates on the documents were not correct and may have thought he had seen the names himself. The former ambassador reiterated that he had been able to collect the names of the government officials which should have been on the documents.

    Now let's see..

    In January of 2003 he went to the DOS and complained that Bush was wrong.

    Yet the CIA report in 3/2002 didn't mention that Wilson thought Mayaki wrong. In fact, it was the opposite.

    The CIA's DO gave the former ambassador's information a grade of "good.....He said he judged that the most important (part)... that the Nigerien Prime Minister believed the Iraqis were interested in purchasing uranium, because this provided some confirmation of foreign government service reporting.

    Link

    So Wilson's information in 2002 was Mayaki's belief that an attempt to purchaser was made. When he met the staff it was Wilson's belief that it was not.

    As was said on Laugh In, "Veryyyyy interesting."

    Parent

    Keep titlting at windmills, JIm (5.00 / 0) (#89)
    by Yman on Mon Jun 20, 2011 at 01:43:26 PM EST
    So Wilson's information in 2002 was Mayaki's belief that an attempt to purchaser was made. When he met the staff it was Wilson's belief that it was not.

    Too funny.  Re: Mayaki's comments, Wilson included them in his report but he was not agreeing with or endorsing them.  Wilson's conclusions were entirely consistent - he said from day one that he believed the yellowcake claims were unsupportable.

    Mayaki agreed to meet with the Iraqi delegation, and he interpreted their overtures to "expand commercial relations" as an interest in purchasing yellowcake.  Yet when he (Mayaki) had the actual meeting, the subject of uranium/yellowcake was never even raised by the Iraqis.  Wilson quoted Mayaki as saying that when he met with the Iraqis he was wary of discussing any trade issues at all because Iraq remained under United Nations sanctions, and Mayaki steered the conversation away from any discussion of trade.

    In his report, Wilson also referred to his meeting with Mia Manga (former minister of mines) who said he was unaware of any such agreements, that there were no sales outside IAEA channels since the mid-80s, and that such a sale would be "difficult if not impossible" due to the tight restrictions on the uranium by the French mining consortium running the Niger operations.

    The CIA (and DIA) then took Wilson's report and interpreted it as confirming their suspicions of an attempt to buy yellowcake, since it confirmed an Iraqi delegation meeting and because of Mayaki's interpretation of their interest in "expanding commercial relations".  It's clear in the Senate report that these conclusions are the CIA officer/analyst's interpretation, not Wilson's.  The INR, conversely, correctly interpreted Wilson's report to confirm that Niger was unwilling and/or unable to supply yellowcake to Iraq.

    Now after the Italian documents (purporting to be yellowcake contracts) were shown to be forged/fraudulent, the CIA performed a re-analysis of the available evidence, and they concluded that "we no longer believe that there is sufficient other reporting to conclude that Iraq pursued uranium from abroad."   Wilson wrote his op-ed piece shortly after it was revealed.

    Not sure how you think your "questions" show inconsistency in Wilson's statements ...

    ... but they don't.

    Parent

    The issue was never the attempt (none / 0) (#90)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jun 20, 2011 at 09:56:28 PM EST
    The issue was, did Iraq purchase? And the answer was no. No one disputed that.

    That's.......that was the issue until Wilson wrote his oped for the NYT and suddenly the issue was what Bush said.... That there was an attempt. Suddenly Wilson tells us he was  off to see buds at DOS and tell them Bush was all wet. And yet this is what the DO said:

    The CIA's DO gave the former ambassador's information a grade of "good.....He said he judged that the most important (part)... that the Nigerien Prime Minister believed the Iraqis were interested in purchasing uranium, because this provided some confirmation of foreign government service reporting.

    There is nothing there that indicates that Wilson disavowed Mayaki's belief in his 2002 debriefing. And if he had you would think that the DO would have made the distinction.

    So Wilson's information in 2002 was Mayaki's belief that an attempt to purchaser was made. When he met the staff it was Wilson's belief that it was not.

    I find that a serious disconnect.

    Parent

    The only disconnect is your logic (none / 0) (#91)
    by Yman on Tue Jun 21, 2011 at 07:50:32 AM EST
    ... or rather, lack thereof.

    After meeting with the Nigerian officials and businessmen, Wilson concluded that there was "nothing to the (yellowcake) story".  His conclusion was corroborated by Ambassador Owens-Kirkpatrick, who said Wilson "had reached the same conclusion that the embassy had reached, that it was highly unlikely that anything was going on".  See the Senate Report - page 42.  The CIA/DIA took his verification of the Iraqi delegate meeting and Mayaki's interpretation of the Iraqi comments (which did happen) and ran with them, despite Wilson's other information and conclusion that there was nothing to the story.  Yet you're trying to suggest that somehow Wilson is responsible for what the DO wrote in his report, and that somehow Wilson, who was never given access to contents of the classified DO report until the Senate hearings, should have somehow magically accessed the DO's report and rewritten it to specifically disavow Myaki's statement and the DO's conclusions.

    You're funny.

    Parent

    I may be funny (none / 0) (#92)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jun 21, 2011 at 10:02:45 AM EST
    but I can recognize when someone skirts an issue.

    And if you want to say that Mayaki knew less about what the Iraqis wanted than Wilson, be my guest.

    But Wilson didn't include that in what he told the CIA in the 2000 debrief or it would have been in the CIA's report.

    Now, are you also funny?

    Nope. You are nasty, impolite and with an ego that cannot be supported by any of your accomplishments.

    But have a nice day.

    Parent

    My, my Jim ... (none / 0) (#93)
    by Yman on Tue Jun 21, 2011 at 10:16:11 AM EST
    And if you want to say that Mayaki knew less about what the Iraqis wanted than Wilson, be my guest.

    "Skirting an issue"?  I'm skirting nothing, and you're just making stuff up out of thin air.  I'm not saying Mayaki knew less about what the Iraqis wanted than Wilson.  I'm saying that Wilson reported Mayaki's comments as part of his report, but concluded that the evidence as a whole did not support the yellowcake allegations.  All of that is documented by the Senate report.  He never endorsed Mayaki's interpretation of the comments, and his conclusions show that he did not, in fact, believe the yellowcake story.

    But Wilson didn't include that in what he told the CIA in the 2000 debrief or it would have been in the CIA's report.

    Wilson didn't include what, specifically?

    Nope. You are nasty, impolite and with an ego that cannot be supported by any of your accomplishments.

    From the guy who lectures everyone else on personal attacks ... heh.

    BTW - You know nothing about me or my accomplishments, Jim.  But have a nice day!

    ;-)

    Parent

    I know you through your (none / 0) (#94)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jun 21, 2011 at 11:32:19 AM EST
    writing and positions.

    That is more than enough to allow me to understand you.

    Have a super nice day.

    And your question was answered in my previous.

    Parent

    Really, Jim? (none / 0) (#95)
    by Yman on Tue Jun 21, 2011 at 11:53:37 AM EST
    Post a list of my "accomplishments".  We can compare ... it'll be fun(ny).

    I'll wait.

    Heh.

    Parent

    Congratulations (none / 0) (#96)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jun 21, 2011 at 12:47:23 PM EST
    I let your snarkiness anger me.

    Which, of course, is always your intent in any discussion we have.

    I proved my point that Wilson's concern over Bush's statement was not reflected in the DO's comments. And I find it hard to believe that the report writers would have left out such an important point or that the DO would failed to comment on it.

    It is helpful to remember that his trip was to help the CIA determine if Iraq had actually purchased yellow cake. And he appears to have done so:

    (  ) The former ambassador told Committee staff that he met with the former Nigerien Prime Minister, the former Minister of Mines and Energy, and other business contacts. At the end of his visit, he debriefed Ambassador Owens-Kirkpatrick                                          , Chad. He told Committee staff that he had told both U.S. officials he thought there was "nothing to the story." Ambassador Owens-Kirkpatrick told Committee staff she recalled the former ambassador saying "he had reached the same conclusions that the embassy had reached, that it was highly unlikely that anything was going on."

    This, of course was 2/2002 and doesn't cover Mayaki's meeting with Iraqis in 1999.

    I see nothing that shows me that in 2002 Wilson had great concern over Mayaki saying he had met with Iraqis in 1999 and that he believed that they wanted to purchase yellowcake.

    Wilson's concern appears belated and timed to supplement the anti-war passions that he shared.


    Parent

    Now you know my intent - heh (none / 0) (#97)
    by Yman on Tue Jun 21, 2011 at 02:31:32 PM EST
    No, Jim.  My intent was to point out that your original claim was false, as I've demonstrated numerous times.

    You originally claimed that Wilson contradicted himself re: the Niger yellowcake claims.  He did not, of course.  He expressed strong skepticism of the claims when he returned from Niger and concluded there was nothing there.  He did not write (or even see) the DO's report, much less control the contents of the DO report.  His "concern" may "appear belated" to the winger devotees of Fox News, but the timing was obvious.  As he clearly stated in his op-ed, he thought the Niger/yellowcake issue was put to bed until Bush made mention of it in his SOTU speech.  Even then, he (and his friend at the DOS) thought that Bush must have been referring to a different country, since there was little to no evidence (Mayaki's interpretation of vague comments) to support it.  Then, in June, 2003, it became obvious that Bush was referring to Niger when it was revealed that the Italian documents purporting to be evidence of a yellowcake sale were revealed as forgeries.  Wilson then wrote the op-ed and it was published on July 6.

    But it's good to know what it "appears like" to you ...

    Parent

    I stand by my comment (none / 0) (#98)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jun 21, 2011 at 08:50:46 PM EST
    Wilson only became interested in what Bush said to enhance his media standing.

    If you want to claim that the CIA lied by not including his belatedly claimed disbelief in the 2/2002 report, be my guest.

    The facts speak.

    Bush was referring to an attempt to purchase.

    The media spun and confused the facts because they hated Bush. They were not anti-war because as soon as Obama arrived they have did a 180 turn.

    Parent

    No kidding (none / 0) (#99)
    by Yman on Tue Jun 21, 2011 at 09:36:05 PM EST
    Wilson only became interested in what Bush said to enhance his media standing.

    You put words in everyone else's mouths - why not thoughts in Wilson's mind.  

    If you want to claim that the CIA lied by not including his belatedly claimed disbelief in the 2/2002 report, be my guest.

    Wilson's disbelief in the 2/2002 report was not "belated".  How was he supposed to express disagreement with a report he was never shown?  You're even funnier, now.

    BTW - I never said I thought the CIA officer/analyst was lying.  Personally, I think the CIA seized on the Mayaki interpretation to support preconceived notions about Iraq's desire to pursue nuclear weapons.  But if you want to claim they were lying, be my guest.

    Heh.

    The facts speak.

    Indeed they do, and they directly refute all of your silly claims about Wilson.

    Bush was referring to an attempt to purchase.

    So what?  I never said otherwise.  Of course, Bush was wrong.

    The media spun and confused the facts because they hated Bush. They were not anti-war because as soon as Obama arrived they have did a 180 turn.

    Whatever... but almost readable.

    Parent

    Quit ducking (none / 0) (#100)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Jun 22, 2011 at 11:04:51 PM EST
    Wilson's disbelief in the 2/2002 report was not "belated".  How was he supposed to express disagreement with a report he was never shown?  You're even funnier, now.

    He never disagreed with the Mayaki's belief that Iraq was wanting to buy yellow cake until it became politically important to do so.

    So his disbelief was "belated."

    Parent

    Not ducking anything (none / 0) (#101)
    by Yman on Wed Jun 22, 2011 at 11:15:38 PM EST
    He merely reported Mayaki's interpretation of their comment re: "expanding commercial relations".  If he agreed with Mayaki, he wouldn't have reported that "it was highly unlikely that anything was going on".

    Not rocket science.

    Parent

    See what Joe Wilson told the CIA (none / 0) (#73)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jun 17, 2011 at 11:39:22 PM EST
    and see what Bush said in his 2003 SOTU.

    Parent
    Very disheartening (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Jun 17, 2011 at 11:47:19 AM EST
    after more thought. Our economy is completely coming apart and this administration can only seem to be there for oligarchs. Our own civil unrest worries this administration too, but for today they will waste their time trying to justify a third war.  It's days like these that I take a good look at Obama and I feel hopeless.

    It reminds me of him putting off facing what had happened to our economy because they were too busy pushing through healthcare reform that a destroyed economy and combusted middle class could never in the end fund and support.

    Perhaps this explains newsreports (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by oculus on Fri Jun 17, 2011 at 12:18:11 PM EST
    yesterday that Pres. Obama's family would be happy if he only served on term as President.  

    Parent
    Well, here's a big "uh-oh" that has (5.00 / 2) (#28)
    by Anne on Fri Jun 17, 2011 at 12:24:33 PM EST
    me a little nervous:

    Wall Street Braces for Layoffs as Profits Wane

    Wall Street plans to get smaller this summer. Faced with weak markets and uncertainty over regulations, many of the biggest firms are preparing for deep cuts in jobs and other costs.

    The cutback plans are emerging even as Wall Street firms have mostly recovered from the financial crisis and are reporting substantial profits again. But those profits are not as big as they were before the crisis, and it is expected that in the coming months it will be even more difficult for firms to make money. Worries about debt in Europe and the shape that the Dodd-Frank financial overhaul rules will ultimately take, combined with the usual summer doldrums, are prompting banks to act.

    "It's a tense environment right now," said Glenn Schorr, an analyst with the investment bank Nomura.

    Even Goldman Sachs, Wall Street's most profitable firm, is retrenching. Senior executives at Goldman have concluded they need to cut 10 percent, or $1 billion, of noncompensation expenses over the next 12 months, according to a person close to the matter who was not authorized to speak on the record. The big pullback will cause Goldman employees, who have already been ordered to cut costs, to re-examine every aspect of their business.

    The firm, this person said, had not set final targets for layoffs, but Goldman was "certain" to shrink headcount in the coming months. Decisions on bonuses are still months away, but they are sure to come down as well if business does not pick up.

    Job losses arrive on Wall Street?  Surely, the apocalypse is nigh, right?  Will this mean some attention, finally, to jobs in general (lol) or will this just mean more effort to give Wall Street more of what it wants?  

    I'm going with Door No. 2 (which is the right number, actually, since that's what it smells like - #2).

    The stink - of war, Libya, secret war in Yemen, increasing tensions with Pakistan, domestic policy, fiscal policy, housing crisis, naked grabs for more and more and more power - is just coming off this country in waves.

    Parent

    CEO bonuses.

    Parent
    Bet yer right (none / 0) (#68)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Jun 17, 2011 at 09:47:11 PM EST
    Who pays us when we are right though?

    Parent
    You get a high five when you're right (5.00 / 2) (#75)
    by republicratitarian on Sat Jun 18, 2011 at 12:33:59 AM EST
    Keep the change.

    Parent
    That seems to be the way it works (none / 0) (#74)
    by republicratitarian on Sat Jun 18, 2011 at 12:33:32 AM EST
    The ones at the top make the rules and the money.

    Parent
    Wall St has an option (5.00 / 2) (#35)
    by BackFromOhio on Fri Jun 17, 2011 at 01:22:35 PM EST
    but will never exercise it -- i.e., lower compensation for top execs and save jobs.  

    Parent
    It is all so discouraging (5.00 / 2) (#48)
    by ruffian on Fri Jun 17, 2011 at 03:38:27 PM EST
    I must resist the impulse to stop paying attention altogether and stop worrying and caring. It all seems so futile.

    Parent
    There was no way to avoid this (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Jun 17, 2011 at 09:24:21 PM EST
    The dumb money isn't showing up anymore.  Wall Street refuses to be properly regulated so that confidence for you and I could return in a timely fashion before they destroyed it for at least a generation.  Jesus Christ, this administration and the one before it hasn't done anything about front running software.  Wall Street is nothing more than a scam for you and I.  This situation will worsen now too.  Once you have destroyed the middle class you have destroyed the engine of your economy but they refused to understand this, they have refused common sense economics 101 understanding time and time and time again.

    I don't think we are going to get a lost decade either anymore.  I think we are getting another Great Depression.

    Parent

    It's the third act... (none / 0) (#69)
    by desertswine on Fri Jun 17, 2011 at 09:50:49 PM EST
    of a three act coup.

    Parent
    The rich... (none / 0) (#81)
    by Mr Natural on Sun Jun 19, 2011 at 08:46:56 AM EST
    ... are stateless.  Why should they give a damn?  To them America is no more than a piece of property to be exploited and sold down the river.

    Parent
    More... (5.00 / 0) (#29)
    by jeffinalabama on Fri Jun 17, 2011 at 12:47:10 PM EST
    Greece, 1946-48
    Indochina-- aid to french, then all else beginning 1952-3.
    Lebanon, 1958
    Dominican Republic 1965
    Nicaragua, nicaragua, and nicaragua...

    Zaire, 1964 (+ or -) 'advisors'
    Argentina and Chile, 1890-1891
    china, 1894-5 marines landed during sino japanese war
    China marines, Yangtzee river patrol, 11 to 1941
    throughout central America and Dominican Republic, in and out for years!
    Yugoslavia, 1919

    Laos, Cambodia, Indonesia...
    Bolivia, Somalia, Sudan...

    Colombia

    The list goes on.

    Geez... the US even threatened Uruguay with nuclear force in the 40s.

    And don't forget, oh... (5.00 / 0) (#32)
    by jeffinalabama on Fri Jun 17, 2011 at 12:50:59 PM EST
    Detroit, a few times...
    Los Angeles
    Memphis
    Puerto Rico in the 1950s.
    Colorado 1914 to break the miner's strike...
    chicago, 1894
    Texas 1915

    and the beat goes on...
    and the beat goes on.

    Parent

    here's an excellent (none / 0) (#33)
    by jeffinalabama on Fri Jun 17, 2011 at 01:03:45 PM EST
    academic paper on the topic of interventions. link here

    Parent
    Jeff, you must be feeling a bit more (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by oculus on Fri Jun 17, 2011 at 01:46:17 PM EST
    optimistic to provide us with such detailed info.  Good.

    Parent
    Nope. (none / 0) (#42)
    by jeffinalabama on Fri Jun 17, 2011 at 02:05:25 PM EST
    But misery loves company. Isolation isn't a good response.

    Parent
    So true. (none / 0) (#43)
    by oculus on Fri Jun 17, 2011 at 02:07:16 PM EST
    Thanks for asking, though (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by jeffinalabama on Fri Jun 17, 2011 at 02:10:22 PM EST
    nt

    Parent
    I remember Memphis and LA (none / 0) (#59)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jun 17, 2011 at 06:20:48 PM EST
    being riots.


    Parent
    I remember (none / 0) (#61)
    by Zorba on Fri Jun 17, 2011 at 06:31:52 PM EST
    the National Guard being called out in Memphis in 1968, and the U.S. Army and Marines being called out in Los Angeles in 1992 (and so much for the Posse Comitatus Act).

    Parent
    I almost forgot (5.00 / 0) (#76)
    by jeffinalabama on Sat Jun 18, 2011 at 08:30:15 AM EST
    the 101st Airborne had a brigade deployed to Little Rock for a while when it desegregated...fixed bayonets, ammunition, etc.

    Parent
    Obviously, the Posse Comitatus Act (none / 0) (#79)
    by Zorba on Sat Jun 18, 2011 at 12:15:42 PM EST
    is "More honor'd in the breach than the observance."  At least for the 1992 Los Angeles riots, the President (George H. W. Bush) used the Insurrection Act of of 1807 (amended a couple of times since) to send out federal troops. The original wording states that federal troops may be called out as a result of "insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy," and the 2007 revision says "natural disaster, epidemic, or other serious public health emergency, terrorist attack or incident, or other condition [and only if] domestic violence has occurred to such an extent that the constituted authorities of the State or possession are incapable of maintaining public order."  Sounds like the President can use a whole lot of excuses to breach the Posse Comitatus Act.  It certainly hasn't gotten any better after 9/11.
    Posse Comitatus Act.  
    Insurrection Act.

    Parent
    Don't forget Rhodesia (none / 0) (#46)
    by Farmboy on Fri Jun 17, 2011 at 02:19:58 PM EST
    Talk about a multiple personality level of support from both the White House and Congress: we sent troops throughout the seventies in support of Ian Smith's government against both the Soviet-backed rebels and the Chinese-backed rebels, while simultaneously enforcing the embargo against military aid to Rhodesia - and our own troops.

    Parent
    The UK forced an arms and aid embargo (none / 0) (#60)
    by Farmboy on Fri Jun 17, 2011 at 06:24:47 PM EST
    through the UN security council - and yup, we voted aye. Since the whole operation was allegedly covert, we could appear to be honoring the embargo as we subverted it. And the covert nature of the - war? kinetic action? I don't remember the 70s euphemism - provided cover for Carter and Congress. No one was allowed to ask embarrassing questions about where all those troops were going.

    Parent
    Yes (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by Zorba on Fri Jun 17, 2011 at 06:33:41 PM EST
    I clearly remember this.  (I'm getting old.  I remember too much.)

    Parent
    Should we count (5.00 / 3) (#36)
    by Zorba on Fri Jun 17, 2011 at 01:27:40 PM EST
    the Indian Wars against the various Native-American tribes?  They began even before we were a nation, and lasted until 1918.  The single longest war within that time frame was against the Apache Nation and lasted from 1840 to 1886.  In any case, we have only had five actual, formally and Constitutionally declared wars in US history:  The War of 1812, the Mexican-American War, the Spanish-American War, World War I, and World War II.  All the other wars were military engagements authorized by Congress, or implicitly authorized by being explicitly funded by Congress, or, as you and BTD point out, military interventions (a euphemism for "war") without Congressional approval.  The Constitution of the United States of America- we hardly knew you.  

    Oh, this administration doe love to torture words! (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by jawbone on Sun Jun 19, 2011 at 01:08:34 PM EST
    From Amy Davidson's analysis at The New Yorker.

    Does Obama really believe that it's not war if one power attacks another and the attacked country is unable to retaliate? Does he think Nazi Germany was within its rights to invade the small European nations it hit first "because they could"?

    U.S. operations do not involve sustained fighting or active exchanges of fire with hostile forces, nor do they involve the presence of U.S. ground troops, U.S. casualties or a serious threat thereof, or any significant chance of escalation into a conflict characterized by those factors.

    Is the point that, while we are bombing Libya, we are doing it from a distance, out of Qaddafi's forces' range, so there aren't "exchanges" of fire, just one-way barrages--hostility, rather than hostilities? By the same reasoning, it wouldn't count as war if any overwhelming force attacked anyone who couldn't effectively hit back; that exemption could apply not only to cruise missiles and drones but to a column of tanks rolling into a village. Is the only concern of the War Powers Act--is our only concern about war--whether our own soldiers can be shot? Aren't we also interested in making sure there is some accountability when our government decides to shoot? (Would, someday, Congress have a say when it came to human troops, but not robot soldiers?) A war is not simply a short-term public-health issue; it can inveigle our country diplomatically, financially, and morally for decades.

    Again, as Lincoln is reported to have said,  "A lawyer who represents himself has a fool for a client."

    Really, in my worst imaginings of what kind of president Obama would be I never, ever, imagined he could be this awful.

    Bush III...on steroids.

    Curious and more curious, (none / 0) (#11)
    by KeysDan on Fri Jun 17, 2011 at 10:43:56 AM EST
    enough to make Alice speak good  English.   The NYT editorial (Friday, June 17) in support of the US military "involvement" in Libya,  which is "undeniably" limited and with  NATO command  "handed off" to Europeans, must not be cut off or the NATO campaign will unravel.  However, the argument continues, President Obama can not evade his responsibility under the War Powers Act, to seek Congressional approval to continue the operation. And,. he needs to go to Congress to make his case.

    But, Alice might see that the Administration's argument permits us to safely "cut and run" and  not worry about "supporting our troops", since we have nothing to cut or run from and we have troops neither on the ground nor in active exchanges of fire with hostile forces.

    Congress could enforce this (none / 0) (#24)
    by sj on Fri Jun 17, 2011 at 11:54:30 AM EST
    They could defund the effort.  But really, what are odds?

    Parent
    they wouldn't because it involves our NATO (none / 0) (#25)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Jun 17, 2011 at 12:00:24 PM EST
    allies and we have worked hard trying to rebuild NATO in order to battle Al Qaeda.  We don't want to piss off Italy, Germany, and France by allowing their oil supply to become even more precarious.

    Parent
    All I'm saying (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by sj on Fri Jun 17, 2011 at 12:16:19 PM EST
    is that Congress could enforce this.  Their authority has been significantly diminished during the last two administrations which they have enabled.  Other than a lot of blather, all the "balance of power" stuff that they've engaged in has been blocking appointments.  Big woo.  It's somewhat effective and incredibly lazy.  Pretty big bang for the buck, though

    They follow the direction of the party leader rather than setting their agenda and creating valuable tension.  They enact laws that the president may or may not choose to enforce.  They squelch dissent from within the party.

    And campaign.  And seek campaign funds.  And campaign.  Rinse and repeat.

    I'm not convinced they give "our NATO allies" any thought at all.  Well, maybe enough to be able to employ a little sanctimony, but that's about it.

    I'm just saying.  Congress could enforce this.  They won't though.  I doubt that the letters will even be all that stern.


    Parent

    There are several issues (5.00 / 0) (#40)
    by KeysDan on Fri Jun 17, 2011 at 01:58:55 PM EST
    at play and it is worth teasing them out: (a) supportive or non-sportive of UN Resolution 1973's merits (b) supportive or non-supportive of its mission creep; (c) applicability or non-applicability  of the War Powers Act (Koh and Bauer claim it does not count in this case, but they are not challenging the Act or its constitutionality, (d) the rightful exercise of Congressional authority/oversight, and (e) the president's desire to hold dear an expansive view of his war-making powers  

    Now, when the president is called on it by the disingenuous Republicans he puts himself in a corner.   If President Obama had sought authority and notified Congress under the War Powers Act or, even, asked for a declaration of war, it is likely that he would have gotten his way.   A declaration of war would have been a little more difficult, perhaps a question or two more, but most Democrats would have either been supportive or acquiesced and the Republicans have rarely seen a war they do not like.

    And, when the "military involvement/war" was underestimated, lasting more than the marketed "days not weeks" and became a contortionistic "diplomatic effort to get rid of Qaddafi and a military intervention to save Libyans", we can't get out of it.  Congressional defunding is a possibility, but in the past we heard the patriotic cry that we need to support the troops on the ground. But, since there aren't any troops there, we have a new reason:  it will fracture NATO, although the purposes set forth for NATO in 1948 are long gone and it now seems to show that our military adventures are a "coalition", even if some NATO nations are participating nominally and others, not at all.   The Libyan misadventure is another stressor on an already stressed out NATO, or as Secretary Gates says, with a dim if not dismal future.

    Parent

    Obama is probably asking (none / 0) (#70)
    by MO Blue on Fri Jun 17, 2011 at 10:03:11 PM EST
    "Where is Yoo when you need him."

    WASHINGTON (AP) -- The New York Times is reporting that President Barack Obama decided he could continue the air war in Libya without congressional approval despite views to the contrary from Justice Department and Pentagon lawyers. link


    Parent
    Who needs a Yoo (none / 0) (#77)
    by KeysDan on Sat Jun 18, 2011 at 08:42:20 AM EST
    when the president is a constitutional expert.  

    Parent
    This administration has pressured (none / 0) (#67)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Jun 17, 2011 at 09:44:32 PM EST
    hard the petting of our NATO allies because they've needed them in Afghanistan, and NATO has been falling apart as far as us being able to rely on our allies of late.  Bush didn't help either, but our NATO allies pretend to be much more incapable than we because our leaders love it.  And we can't wait to show everyone how capable we are.

    The more we stand up though, the easier it is for them to stand down.  In Afghanistan we have had to deal with our NATO ally countries having to seek many kinds of extra approval via their constituencies.  We have had our allies have to scale back troops or able to add more, and Al Qaeda is everyone's problem.

    If Obama is going to demand to be the magic leader who does not need to get approval from those he leads, then he is setting us up some more to be the only NATO country with a skilled functioning military.  He is enabling the rest of the world to not have to be able to defend themselves.  And he is forcing all of us to be the final authority on the planet and therefore the one to ultimately blame EVERYTHING on in the end too.

    Don't know about everyone else, but I can't do it.  Whatever it takes to turn it around must happen.  My country is really hurting right now.  All the rest of the NATO countries are ahead of us now on the education, health, safety, and well being of their children and their families.  Kids in my country will go to sleep hungry tonight while our tax payers pay to police the whole phucking world.  I'm done with it and shame on Obama!!!

    Parent

    Obama (none / 0) (#12)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Fri Jun 17, 2011 at 10:56:13 AM EST
    is completely wrong on this.  If he's going to do this stuff, he needs to go to congress and get the proper authority.  I really don't understand the issue politically or otherwise.

    I hope the legal actions and other pressure for Obama on this issue.  I am not terribly bothered by this from a practical matter because I think we should be trying to get Ghaddafi out) but on the fundamental point, I think Obama should be pressured to do the right thing in the right way.

    [Please save for the "Yes I do criticize Obama" files]

    OK, duly noted (5.00 / 0) (#15)
    by Dadler on Fri Jun 17, 2011 at 11:15:37 AM EST
    But until we stop the military empire our nation is, this place is on a march into the grave.  History, history, history, empires, empires, empires, death, death, death...always happens.  And our "leadership" have proven more than mentally retarded enough (and I mean that literally) to take us six feet under in record time.  The right thing and the right way require more imagination and creativity and genuine humanity that our leaders could have in ten lifetimes.  

    Parent
    This diary is also posted at DK, where (none / 0) (#38)
    by oculus on Fri Jun 17, 2011 at 01:47:32 PM EST
    many commenters are defending both U.S. involvement in Libya and the President's rationale for why he doesn't need to get auth. from Congress for this military action.  

    Why am I not (5.00 / 4) (#39)
    by Zorba on Fri Jun 17, 2011 at 01:54:15 PM EST
    surprised?  This type of thing is why I have long since ceased to read DK, except on very rare occasions.  They would be screaming bloody murder over there if a Republican president had done this.  Heck, even our own ABG thinks that Obama is wrong in this case.

    Parent
    If a Democrat does it... (5.00 / 2) (#47)
    by Anne on Fri Jun 17, 2011 at 02:29:13 PM EST
    well, you know how that one goes.

    Sad to see that after years of railing against the Republicans who never met a rationale for war (or spying or secrecy or whatever) that didn't make sense to them, everything apparently looks different to far too many Democrats when the same - or worse - policies are emanating from a Democratic administration.

    Proof to me that people pay much less attention to policy than they do to personality, or whose "team" someone is on, than they should, which is probably one reason things are in the craptastic state they're in.

    Doeesn't make sense to me, don't understand how people cannot see that they are cheering for policies they used to oppose; probably explains why I haven't adjusted to Backwards World.

    Parent

    IOKIYAF (none / 0) (#52)
    by observed on Fri Jun 17, 2011 at 04:28:05 PM EST
    I know (none / 0) (#66)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Jun 17, 2011 at 09:26:06 PM EST
    I read one totally worthless B.S. obot cheerleading diary yesterday about it all and I shut my computer off for the day.  Too much crazy for me.

    Parent
    It's good to see people hold to their principles- (none / 0) (#83)
    by jawbone on Sun Jun 19, 2011 at 12:52:22 PM EST
    NOT.

    So nicely tribal, however.  D four legs good; R four legs bad -- and it takes is a change in the presidency to make some people forget their principles, which means they didn't really have them.


    Parent