Obama Speech

Giuliani maybe, but Cheney's principles are all unprincipled, dark, ruthless, sinister, and foul. He can talk to snakes. He farts in elevators.

 

No, action had to be taken fast because Quadaffi was closing in on Benghazi and had vowed to raze it to the ground. The Euros were slow and indecisive, of course, so Obama stepped up and began the air strikes. That first week was all US and even after we formally handed control to NATO, the US was covertly involved until the Euros had it under control. Obama had to insist that France and Britain step up and they did like they were told.

He stepped it up big time because it was increasing apparent that Al Qaeda was either hiding in Pakistan or was covertly allied with Pakistan. He sought to move the war to Pakistan where Al Qaeda was hiding while putting ground forces pressure on the Taliban in Afghanistan to negotiate with the Afghan government. We really only blame the Taliban for harboring Al Qaeda, not for 9/11. This was not a continuation of Bush policies, but a change in how the war was going to be prosecuted.

It still takes a leader to order covert military action. Bush would not touch Yemen or Somalia.

I submit that you just don't want it to be.

 

Well, I must disagree. Check the timetable of the intervention.

Operation Odyssey Dawn was the U.S. code name for the US part of the international military operation in Libya to enforce United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973 during the initial period of 19–31 March 2011, which continued afterwards under NATO command as Operation Unified Protector.

Operations commenced on the same day with a strike by French fighter jets and U.S. and UK forces conducting strikes from ships and submarines via 110 Tomahawk cruise missiles and air assets bombing Gaddafi forces near Benghazi. The goal of coalition forces has been to impose a no-fly zone and to destroy forces that threatened Benghazi civilians – in effect this has meant forces loyal to Gaddafi.

“Our consensus was strong, and our resolve is clear. The people of Libya must be protected and in the absence of an immediate end to the violence against civilians, our coalition is prepared to act and act with urgency.” -- President Obama​

The U.S. initially had strategic command of the military intervention, coordinated missions between coalition members and set up Joint Task Force Odyssey Dawn on the USS Mount Whitney for the tactical command and control in the area of operations. but passed complete military command of the operation to NATO and took up a support role on 31 March 2011.

Are you sure you want me to make point-by-point rebuttles, amigo? :wink: It might get a bit tiresome for the peanut gallery.

The War Power Act was an attempt to find a balance point between the dual responsibilities of Congress and the President to conduct war. Congress has the power to declare war, while the President as commander-in-chief of the military has the power to repel attacks against the United States and bears responsibility for leading the armed forces. Clearly the executive is empowered to deal with brush-fire wars, interventions, pirates, and the kinds of minor conflicts of which we have had dozens since World War II. But the Congress must pass acts of war for the mobilization of the nation for major conflicts.

But in Vietnam, a brush-fire war escalated and we found ourselves involved for many years in situations of intense conflict without a declaration of war. The War Powers Act was designed to put a limit on how big a conflict the Executive could manage without a war declaration from Congress. A good idea, but it sets an arbitrary point at which Congress must be involved. The problem is that these situations don't all have the same characteristics or importance. Presidents have always maintained that the act is unconstitutional and that it was intended for the President to make the decision when to go to Congress based on each situation. Clinton and Obama have both ignored it and Bush and Reagan skirted it.

I tend to think the Act is a good idea but lacks flexibility and inhibits a presidents ability to take quick and overwhelming action when needed. It should make no difference at all if it takes 55 days to deal with a situation or 75 days. Congress must be notified of military action within 48 hours and kept apprised. That seems sufficient to me. Congress would remain free to put pressure on the president to pass an act of war if they think he's going too far. Or some other checks and balances that can be modified to each situation rather than being arbitrary.

So, I think that Libya is exactly the kind of Brush-fire conflict that a President should deal with, especially since he is obviously limiting American involvement and responsibility considering our two other ongoing military situations.

I see both a distinct escalation and a change of emphasis with Obama.

Don't try to put words in my mouth. I clearly stated that Obama's covert actions in Yemen and Somalia were not a continuation of any Bush effort. Bush never even retaliated against Al Qaeda in Yemen after the USS Cole Bombing!

The Executive's primary leadership responsibilities involve foreign policy and war making. It is the Congress that is responsible for budgets, spending, taxing, and lawmaking. You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink.

Neither party is willing to to this as the hispanics in America pass the blacks and become the largest voting minority. We have met the enemy and he is us.

It is the Republicans that block all discussion of tax changes other than more blind cuts.

In his second term. Second term Presidents are free to take more unpopular choices.

Fair enough. I give him a B- but I don't think he's perfect. He's just far superior to the D- of the last administration. I don't want any part of more republicans in charge, it was a disaster. And I'm not the only one.

 

Exactly.

Inaccurate. The need was NATO's and we are not only part of NATO but the leader of NATO.

Irrelevant. You said that he did not take action because of concern for Benghazi civilians and that was clearly wrong.

He ain't my guy, he's the President of the United States. I feel the same way about any president. He needs the freedom to act in the short term. If you remember I warned you six years ago concerning the Patriot Act that you shouldn't give Bush special powers that you wouldn't like seeing President Hillary exercising. Personalities come and go but Presidential powers need to remain consistent.

Well, that is a guess, of course. But what I said had nothing to do with elections. I was talking about prime responsibilities . . . the execution of federal law, the responsibility of appointing federal executive, diplomatic, regulatory, military, and judicial officers, and concluding treaties with foreign powers.