33 2 mins 11 yrs

America goes to war to protect her borders and her national interests; in order to go to war, Congressional approval is needed, at least that is how I understand it.

Obama disagrees. According to Obama, America has a heretofore unknown “core principle” that posits that we go to war when the “entire international community” agrees that there is a “humanitarian crisis.”  Obama in Chile speaks about Libya at a press conference:

“The core principle that has to be upheld here is that when the entire international community, almost unanimously, says that there is a potential humanitarian crisis about to take place, that a leader who has lost his legitimacy decides to turn his military on his own people, that we can’t simply stand by with empty words, that we have to take some sort of action. I think it’s also important to note that the way that the U.S. took leadership and managed this process ensures international legitimacy and ensures that our partners, members of the international coalition, are bearing the burden of following through on the mission as well. Because, as you know, in the past there have been times when the United States acted unilaterally or did not have full international support, and as a consequence typically it was the United States military that ended up bearing the entire burden,”

Worst. President. Ever.

Click to rate this post!
[Total: 0 Average: 0]

33 thoughts on “Core Principles

  1. Patty what if he’d said no to the UN, would you still be complaining that he didn’t man up. Lets face it, you just don’t like him, and are prejudiced against everything he does. If he does it one way you say it should be another….

    Would you have prefered that Europe had alone carried out the wishes of the UN with the US abstaining?

    Is this really a war? You yourself say there is no clear objective, they can’t agree among themselves even if Gadaffi is a legitimate target. The British have just voted on this and it was carried unanamously (excuse spelling). A bit late for a vote, they too put the cart before the horse, but in the end America did what was asked of it, I’ve no problem with Gadaffi being taken out. But can’t see this ending anytime soon. I think you are of the opinion the rebels are like hamas and that too is off putting for you, but that is not the case. Pity you couldn’t access tonights BBC panorama…it would have put that fear to rest.

  2. ” if he’d said no to the UN, would you still be complaining that he didn’t man up” No. I complain when he dithers, but if he made a decision and clearly explained it – no complaints.

    “Would you have prefered that Europe had alone carried out the wishes of the UN with the US abstaining?”

    Yes. I think the US should act in her own interests. I don’t think the UN acts in the interests of the US – I am not, in general, supportive of the UN. I am supportive of our allies because they are our allies.

    “is this really a war?” In substance, yes. In form, no.

    No clear objective is a huge problem. I don’t believe we can win without a clear objective. If we don’t win, than we lose. Why enter into a war in order to lose?

  3. Patty it is not a war in substance either. It’s ‘military action’. Thats the only label that fits. They didn’t go in to win, they went in to implement a NFZ, and possibly curtail Gadaffis power to hit his own people. That is an objective of sorts, and it’s what they are doing.

    Also it doesn’t matter if you are not supportive of the UN, America is signed up to it, so she will play her part. Though leadership if the US pulls back or claims she has fulfilled her commitment will be a problem, its very contentious already.

    So if its not a war, no need for congressional approval? No?

  4. >>America goes to war to protect her borders and her national interests<<

    Yet you supported Bush's war in Iraq.

  5. Yes. That war had two purposes: 1. remove Saddam Hussein who presumedly had nuclear weapons and planned to use them 2. establish a democracy that would serve as a example, friend and ally in the ME

    What is the Obama Doctrine? Military intervention if the UN whines and complains? Towards what end? removal of Ghaddafi? If Ghaddafi is removed, then what? does the UN (translation – the US Marines) then hold elections? etc. etc.

    Bush had the approval of the Congress and the majority of the people before we went to war. Obama just blithely approves military action on a new front – no discussion, approval, nada.

  6. correct. no declaration of war – no need for congress to approve – a fact that the Left rightfully railed about when Bush did this in Iraq. However, Bush got the approval of Congress – just not the official declaration of war. Obama has neither.

    A military action for an amorphous goal – towards a vague end – with the tenuous support of our UN ally – fair friends at best – all under the control and direction of Obama, who couldn’t decide last week about a “no fly” zone – but seems to think the lives of the US military are to be toyed with.

    No thought of funding the war either – or what happens with Afghanisatan…or Iraq.. this is amateur hour – and

    while I can’t believe that I am taking the side of the much hated Michael Moore – here, I am. He is right about this.

  7. Paty – neither of those two “purposes” was advanced as the reason. You’ll shill against Obama whatever he does.

  8. I shill against Obama no matter what he does? Mahons, this is not a well thought out comment. This is just a knee jerk reaction to me.

    I’m against this military action in Libya – that makes me a “shill against Obama?”

    Why is this about me? Why not just talk about the wisdom of Obama’s recent action?

    And why is Bush’s Iraq war suddenly relevant?

  9. Noel: why not put your arrogant intelligence to the test and actually state your case instead of dragging up the Bush years?

  10. You’ve been shilling against him on these pages for years, or don’t you recall? You are the woman who cried wolf.

  11. First, I never heard “shilling against” before. but I guess it works.

    “Crying wolf” implies that I have been making up stories about Obama – in fact, Obama is just as bad as I predicted before the election and now that we are in Libya, he is proving to be even worse.

    I believe Obama to be – by temperament – a screw-up, a prankster – politically, he is n the pocket of the Public Employee Unions as well as many other special interest groups – including malpractice lawyers – I don’t believe that he is good for the country or representing my best interests, or the best interests of the majority of Americans.

    I would love to be proven wrong about Obama. Believe me, I would.

    But we are trillions now in debt – with inflation coming on strong and high unemployment. – We have Public Unions behaving like gangsters with no civility lecture from Obama in sight

    We still are ill-advisedly in Afghanistan and have just opened a new front in Libya.

    So, yeah, so far Obama has not impressed me. At all.

  12. Patty

    It is in America’s interest to prevent a humanitarian catastrophe on the shores of the Mediterranean.

    America’s interests are every bit as much in stake as in prior military actions- in Panama, Haiti, Dominican Republic, Grenada, many other places near and far.

    But some of those were actions taken by presidents that you like, such as President Reagan, and this Libya action is ordered by a president that you are filled with hatred and disrespect for.

  13. Would you have prefered that Europe had alone carried out the wishes of the UN with the US abstaining?

    Oh that would have been fun to watch…lol

  14. A President has the right and the authority to bomb anyone he wants, I don’t begrudge Obama this ability. That doesn’t make his action any less stupid

  15. I don’t agree with that, at all.

    No one on the planet has the right or the authority to ” bomb anyone he wants “

  16. maybe not in a moralistic view, but as part of a presidents authority he does under our laws

  17. Troll, if you’re a constitutionalist, you must admit that congress has the sole right to declare war except in a state of imminent threat or national emergency.

    Libya is clearly neither.

  18. The precedence has been set and legally tested that the commander in chief can move, deploy, and expend military assets.

    Firing missiles and other actions are in his constitutional purview

  19. You’re on to a huge issue; the complete abdication of any type of deliberative process and oversight by the Congress. A recent Lefty WaPO columnist called Obambi, ‘Where’s Waldo President’. ‘Where’s Waldo Congress’ is more appropriate.

  20. It doesn’t matter whether Obama goes to Congress or not. Congress, like the US military, is one of the few areas of American public life that is fully-funded: check the campaign contributions of the great majority of the elected politicos. They will vote as they are instructed.

  21. This is a military action, not a war.

    And very many presidents have done similar things.

  22. I never said that anyone has the right to bomb ” whoever they want “.

    This is the response to a humanitarian and geopolitical emergency, as ratified by your United Nations. Couldn’t be more legal if you tried.

  23. I aimed the question at Troll, he said “A President has the right and the authority to bomb anyone he wants”

  24. under the wars power acts a US President as commander in chief can use military assets anyway he wants without congressional approval, if the mission is deemed by the congress to not be in compliance with their objectives they can cut the funding for said operations.

    This comes up every time a president fires off a bunch of cruise missiles, like when Bill Clinton blew up an aspirin plant because news of a stained dress leaked out

  25. Repeating that lie does not make it true

    That lie comes exclusively from Republican talk radio sources. When President Clinton took the fight to Al Queda, the Republican mouth breathers basically took the side of Al Queda by criticizing Clinton for doing the right thing.

    Wonder why people despise politics / politicians / those who obsess on politics?

  26. no Phantom, you are wrong and the courts are on my side. Every president since Eisenhower has used their authority, and every congress has blasted them for it.

    Yet they still do it today, because it’s legal and they can.

    show me a court ruling from the supremes that says they can’t

  27. Troll

    I am not here referring to ” duh Constitution ” like all the rest of the Constitutional scholars of the keyboard

    I refer to the ” Monica Missiles ” slander – when the right gave aid and comfort to the enemy and attacked Clinton when he tried to do the right thing

Comments are closed.