When I look at the agita over Obama’s War Powers Act letter, I see a lot of misdirected anger. I agree that the war in Libya is sheer folly, that Obama has offered incomplete and illogical explanations, but what about Congress? I know that we’ve all given up on them ever doing anything, but it’s still worth nothing that it is their job to limit the power of the executive. Their power to limit the prosecution of war (or “hostilities” or “a tea party with cluster munitions”) is essentially limitless.
Here’s what Charlie Stevenson, author of the book Congress at War has to say about Libya (via):
As President Obama said in reporting, as required by the law, the deployment of US forces against Libya, it’s time for the Congress to express its will. Regrettably, Congresses of both parties have regularly evaded their responsibilities over the decades by failing to pass legislation, either to authorize or limit or halt the ongoing military operations. Lawmakers have the power of the purse. They also can impose goals and conditions for the operation — as they have done in past conflicts. […]
It doesn’t matter what the lawyers say about this. What matters is what the lawmakers do. And if that means finding majorities for something less than the most extreme positions, tough; that’s the legislative process.
Congress has an 18% approval rating for good reason: they shirk their duty, regularly. Even if you believe that Obama is as bad as or worse than Bush, it isn’t doing Democrats or Progressives any good to focus all their hate on him, because the next Republican president will also try to get away with pushing the boundaries of their war powers, and hating him or her will do absolutely no good. Having a Congress that will do something to limit executive power, on the other hand, can do all of us some good.
Also, too: Stevenson’s advocacy of a war tax is spot-on.
sb
Marc
An “on this issue” qualifier is something that I read into that sentence, but I agree that it’s this sentence that’s going to get the heat on. If that’s not what you meant you might want to edit it, or all of the discussion will be on Bush=Obama.
amk
@ sb – You’re missing the point.
OzoneR
The WPA is just another example of our stupid system of government where you need to compromise with two completely opposite points of view in order to get something done.
Why didn’t Congress flat out tell Nixon “Here’s an act telling you can’t send troops into action without or consent…period?” Because there weren’t enough votes to override Nixon’s veto? More than 2/5 of Congress were fine with giving up their Constitutional powers, even in 1973.
OzoneR
@sb
This isn’t about Obama. I, for one, don’t think he’s as bad or worse than Bush, nor do I think mistermix thinks so either.
I also, for the record, don’t think Libya was a folly and ultimately will turn out ok.
Bringing him up is only to going to bring out the trolls and i’d like to have a real conversation for once, not a childish flame war.
kgrant1073
Or, Obama thinks that as long as the Senate will play lapdog for at least one component of his desired actions, he may as well press his advantage.
Maybe he actually believes that getting rid of Gaddafi would be a particularly good plan – and thus decides to do so unless the Senate actually grows a backbone on a war powers issue and actually challenges him (which is what he rather thinks they are supposed to do). They don’t, so he does. My guess is that if the Senate decided to actually do something, Obama would make his case, and hope for the best. If it didn’t pan out, he would find a different avenue to try. He does seem a rather pragmatic sort.
The biggest difference between this and some of the other parts of his agenda that he would like to pursue is simply that he knows that the Senate will never do anything beyond send sternly worded letters when the issue is war or ‘national defense’. May as well as swing for the fences when you can.
If they wanted to stop him, they could. They really don’t want to, they just want to make noise, thus the bombing continues. Obama knows this. Because when they want to stop him (see: job creation, energy independence, health care, filing the judiciary), they do so.
If you see a green light, you hit the gas.
cathyx
With an 18% approval rating, I think that the democrats and progressives do hate congress.
capt
“Obama may be as bad as or worse than Bush”
You’re nuts
PeakVT
War tax? Only for a Democrat war. Republican wars pay for themselves.
arguingwithsignposts
Agree with @Marc – that’s just some FP trolling there. And, fwiw, he’s nowhere near as bad as, or worse, than Bush, given the preponderance of evidence. He seems to have some policies that are in the neighborhood, but on the whole, anyone who makes that claim is an idiot. And you can call me an Obot if you like, but whatever.
ETA: I don’t think a war tax solves anything. Only a draft with no exceptions except for medical reasons would solve our penchant for permanent war.
OzoneR
And I still find it telling that the holy progressives still haven’t explained why one of their darling SCOTUS candidates was the one who told Obama to ignore WPA.
Anyone asked Greenwald if he still thinks Koh is an outstanding SCOTUS choice?
kgrant1073
Mayhap Mistermix is hoping some from flowers from Greenwald?
Jim, Foolish Literalist
I thought and still think the Libyan bombings were a mistake, and I also think a lot of the people keening about our “third war” would be just as angrily blaming Obama for “letting” a massacre happen in Benghazi if we hadn’t acted.
As to the actual topic, I agree it’s time for the first-among-equals branch to debate and vote on this question. Al Franken said flat out they’re gonna. I hope so.
mistermix
The irony in the “Obama worse than Bush” line didn’t come across in print, so I edited it to be clearer.
Jim, Foolish Literalist
Well, I hate most Republicans and a lot of Democrats. If I sat down and made a list of ‘critters I actually like, I’d be surprised if I got to 30 Senators. Off the top of my head I can probably name fifteen or so Reps that I like.
Fucen Pneumatic Fuck Wrench Tarmal
unless we er the media, er everyone who writes the scripts for the media are going to start demagoging the k’dafi(i feel entitled to my own spelling)is a bad man meme, and we take over the war in a way we aren’t now, there is no way to make this a vote congress is afraid to be on the wrong side of like iraq. an excess profits tax on corporations funding ww1 and ww2? wow can we get conservatives to come out against the good wars? corporations should pay for war. they are the beneficiaries.
OzoneR
I figured that was how you meant it.
amk
While I supported the Libya ‘war’ due to factors like qadaffi, Nato, UN resolution etc., I see that Nato/US is completely fucking this up with their ‘only air-strike’ stupidity. Now it looks like they’re stuck in a quagmire.
As for WPA, Obama has thrown a gauntlet and did an end run around them since he knew that 100% noppers will deny him the legitimacy he sought. So, it’s up to the congress critters to pick up the gauntlet instead of all this ‘bipartisan’ show-boating.
Corner Stone
mistermix – to be clear, would you approve of an initiative in the House that proposed to limit or reduce US actions in Libya?
amk
Reg that 18% or whatever approval rating, it’s ironic that 90% of these congress critters are re-elected time after time. So it’s obvious everyone thinks their own critter is peachy and it’s only the thugs from the other districts that are villains.
Mark S.
And how would that work? Could they just stop funding Afghanistan? We have 100,000 troops there. Just stop paying them and sending supplies? That would be really popular.
And the President would claim such restrictions are unconstitutional because they infringe on his duties as Commander-in-Chief. So you’re back to square one.
I’m not trying to be flip; this is a real problem with our Constitution. Congress has some cards to play (such as impeachment) but none of them are really easy or attractive.
gnomedad
I like this as a “spreading the pain” measure short of re-instituting the draft. I’d love to see Republicans argue against this, although I’m sure they’ll find some excuses.
OzoneR
Technically yes, that’s how it would work, but that’s the option they have. It’s what the left wanted with Iraq in 2007.
Take the executive branch to court and let a court decide.
patrick II
Benen, Drum, Cole, LGM have all had something to say on this one way or another. My own take is that, while I don’t like the expansion of executive power, at least the executive can do something — anything. Right now Congress couldn’t pass a bill to put toilet paper in their own men’s room.
This isn’t just about war, but about running a country. Our congress is disfunctional and while having power concentrated in one place is dangerous, at least the executive can make a decision and do something.
In the longer view, the disfunction of the congress works towards republican advantage of course — concentrating more and more power into the executive branch by rendering congress useless. Most of the time I think its a devious, thought out long term conservative strategy for concentrating authoritarian power, other times I think conservatives are so dumb they really think praying for rain in Texas will cause the climate to change back and they don’t understand long term anything.
It’s like arguing with an idiot savant.
cathyx
Why would you support any president who defies the constitution and wants to extend the Patriot Act?
OzoneR
What does any of this have to do with the Patriot Act?
Good God can this place ever stay on topic? Are we going to discuss job creation now?
mistermix
@Corner Stone: I’d like the House and Senate to just defund operations in Libya, but any legislation that limits that war is better than nothing.
justawriter
Be nonpartisan. Hate everyone.
Ghanima Atreides
@mistermix
I disagree. For once America is acting on the side of democracy and the muslim people. In Libya we are on the same side as the Muslim Brotherhood and the Arab League, and this somewhat repairs our horrible image problem in MENA.
And do you think Obama has to announce his strategies and explain them publically so the wingnuttery can demogogue them?
We don’t know everything, there is a reason for some things to be classified.
A soldier returning from the sharp edge of the A-stan conflict told me two things that you won’t see in the news– 1) the drawdown has already started.
And 2) EVERY soldier returning from an A-stan tour has to have PSTD counselling post the A-stan Kill Squad.
Ghanima Atreides
@mistermix
I’d like them to defund A-stan because we have ALREADY LOST THERE.
In Libya we have a high probability of positive outcome, meaning Qaddafi gets forced out.
I dislike Humanitarian Imperialism and Right-to-Protect as policy. It is still meddling. But Libya has a high probability of success, and our participation is generating Arab street cred for diplomacy, NATO, and the american mythos of “democracy” promotion.
Villago Delenda Est
Congress has been running from its responsibilities for the past 30 years. The last time it tried to assert itself was in the 70’s, and that turned out so well for them that they’ve recoiled from doing anything actually serious ever since. The pathetic impeachment of Clinton doesn’t count, because it wasn’t about any serious issue of separation of powers, or of actual criminal misconduct related to governing, but purely partisan in nature.
JR
I’m in that odd position of supporting military action against Gaddafi and thinking that President Obama acted unconstitutionally. But I’m also pretty well-versed in the history of when Congress has (and when it hasn’t) acted to reign in the executive branch. So here’s my question for mistermix:
What are they supposed to do about it?
The way I see it there are four options for asserting Congressional primacy in war powers. Congress can do nothing and allow yet another executive usurpation of war powers to take place (by far the most common outcome in these situations); Congress can attempt to cut off funding for the strikes (akin to cutting off funds for the Vietnam War in 1973); the House and/or Senate can censure the President for acting unconstitutionally but allow him to continue in his general path (like Polk was in 1848 over the Mexican War he “unnecessarily and unconstitutionally” started); or the House can impeach him. In theory, any of these actions can be stopped once commenced if the President acknowledges Congress’ authority and seeks permission to continue military action.
So are we calling for a censure now or what?
mk3872
Tell that to the thousands of Libyans trying to reclaim their country from Gdahfi’s oppressions by sacrificing their lives. They are very grateful that Obama and NATO are providing assistance. Notice, too, how Ghadafi is now taking advantage of NATO country’s uneasiness about the actions to drive a wedge between the countries.
And just where does this kind of idiocy come from?
He’s gone on TV and in other speeches numerous times explaining that we partnered with NATO to save the people of Misrata and the rebels and that they’re trying to push out Ghidafi. I mean, what more did you need from the prez to get this through your thick head already ??
Corner Stone
@mistermix
Ok, thanks. It’s doubtful that will occur but if/when it does I look forward to your post on it.
Head Bulshytt Talker in Chief of the Temple of Libertarianism(superluminar)
I agree with G_A for once. The Libya action is important for defending NATOs existence/position here. We should always be on the side of democracy anyway, even if it causes difficulties.
Ghanima Atreides
@Head Bulshytt Talker
One problem is that American policy has CONSISTANTLY been anti-democracy in MENA.
Libya is our first actual chance to be on the side of justice and human rights.
And our first chance to ‘win’.
Ghanima Atreides
@mistermix
just like you fell for EDk’s fake conversion to liberalism, you are falling for the conservatives/libertarians fake conversion to anti-war policy.
They are only against Odessy Dawn because its Obama’s op.
You such a dumb schmuck.
d. john
@sb,
speeches aside, please enumerate the policy differences between the Bush #43 administration and the Obama administration.
Show your work.
This will be on the test.
d. john
@mk3872
We should not be policing the world.
The *proper* way to declare war is by following the War Powers Act. Not claiming it doesn’t apply because somehow air bombing runs do not count as “hostilities”… If firing missiles and bombs from airplanes does not count as hostilities, then *damn* I’d hate to see what a disagreement in the Obama home would look like.
You watch too much TV. You should turn off the tube and read more. It makes you smart.
Admiral_Komack
How is Congress like The Professional Left?
They talk tough, but after all is said and done, they don’t do shit.
Mark S.
@Head Bulshytt Talker in Chief of the Temple of Libertarianism(superluminar) (man I miss the reply button):
I completely disagree. NATO is strongest when it’s a defensive alliance. When it starts being used on police actions the cracks begin to show. Members who disagree with certain interventions start bitching and refuse to take part. The alliance starts being seen as a tool of imperialism rather than a defensive alliance that has been really effective as a deterrent to WWIII.
I’m against expanding NATO to every fucking country that borders Russia, and I’m against using it on police actions.
d. john
Ghanima Atreides,
If this war is so “necessary” then Obama should be able to make the case to Congress.
Congress is supposed to declare war. Not the president.
This is the same messy bullshit that Bush did. We have laws for a reason. We have separation of powers for a reason.
Obama is shitting all over our democracy… Just like Bush did. There really isn’t any difference, except that you like Obama, which doesn’t really matter when it comes down to it.
Hopefully, one day, when you are less naive, you’ll wake up to the fact that people must be judged based on their *actions*, not their words, their party affiliation, or their excuses. Best of luck to you.
Corner Stone
Libya is a “kinetic action” where the dead people do not perish from hostilities(tm).
Xenos
Obama has explained himself, and he has not declared war. So what is your problem here?
Ghanima Atreides
Why are you Obama Concern Trolls all shitting your pants over Libya?
You fucking retards WE HAVE ALREADY LOST in Afghanistan and Iraq is giving us the boot in December.
Those two efforts are costing the US taxpayer 100 million dollars A DAY!
I’m not the naive one here.
Its assclowns like cornerstone and Cole and d. john that are the naifs.
d. john
@Corner Stone,
Looks like you mastered newspeak. Heh.
Shorters:
Bush (#43): It’s okay to bomb brown people because they are brown and so they don’t matter. Oh and we’ll be greeted as liberators! Who cares what congress thinks. I’m the decider!
Obama: It’s okay to bomb foreigners because they really really want us to. No, Really, they do. Everyone loves being bombed back to the stone-age by foreign invaders. Oh, and we’ll be greeted as liberators! Who cares what congress thinks. I’m the decider!
Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.
d. john
“Why are you Obama Concern Trolls all shitting your pants over Libya?”
Because Obama broke the law.
If that isn’t a good enough reason, how about the fact that we simply can’t afford a 3rd unfunded war.
But really, he broke the law. Namely, the War Powers Act.
No president should be above the law, you blind, ignorant dumb shit. Go take a civics course. Please.
OzoneR
Are you really denying the Libyans asked for our help?
Really?
This is like arguing the Germans wanted to be free of Hitler, but they didn’t want us to do any damage to Berlin. I’m pretty sure the Libyans who asked for help knew we were coming with bombs.
d. john
@Ghanima Atreides,
if blind loyalty is what you are after, they have party for that. It starts with an R.
OzoneR
One would argue this was a defensive action. Defending Benghazi.
Corner Stone
@Ghanima
Grrlfriend, I think you best check yoself fo you reck yoself.
Tell us again, how many times have you flip-flopped on just Libya alone?
OzoneR
No the proper way to declare war is to ask Congress for a declaration of war. But that’s irrelevant.
Once again I’m noticing no one wants to talk about how progressive anti-torture Harold Koh is the one who told Obama he could ignore the WPA.
d. john
@OzoneR,
“This is like arguing the Germans wanted to be free of Hitler”
We were attacked.
Alos, the difference is FDR did not break the law to enter into war. He did at least do it under the authorization of the War Powers act of 1941, (not the modern one I mentioned above – The War Powers Act of 1973 (50 U.S.C. 1541-1548)).
Congress passed the modern War Powers Act for a reason.
If the law needs to be changed, there are proper mechanisms – CONSTITUTIONALLY VIABLE mechanisms to do so. Obama simply claims that the War Powers Act doesn’t apply here.
He argues that bombing doesn’t count as “hostilities”.
Are you saying you agree?
If we aren’t a nation of laws, then what are we other than a Banana Republic? The president is NOT above the law.
d. john
I don’t know who Koh is, and don’t care.
Who calls him progressive?
Let me help you understand progressiveness a bit better:
Ghandi was progressive
MLK was progressive
Jesus was progressive
All of them were anti-violence.
I don’t know who this Koh character is, but I certainly did not vote for him, and he sounds like a Pro-War shill to me.
God help the MIC – to die off…
Uncle Clarence Thomas
.
.
@OzoneR
I’ll field this one, chum. Harold Koh, like President Obama and everybody else, should be fired for saying one thing before he was hired and then doing something different after he was hired.
.
.
amk
@d. john – poutrage does not an argument make. Angry denunciations of “Obama broke the law” do not make it a fact when the congress critters themselves aren’t sure about the “law”.
d. john
amk,
Congress isn’t sure about the law?
The question seems to be, whether “bombing” counts as hostilities, which is the argument the administration is making for ignoring WPA.
You are dodging. Maybe it’s accidental, maybe it’s not…
But the real question, based on the arguments of the administration for ignoring the WPA is that bombing does not count as hostile action.
You seem to agree.
The Ministry of Truth controls information: news, entertainment, education, and the arts. Winston Smith works in the Minitrue RecDep (Records Department), “rectifying” historical records to concord with Big Brother’s current pronouncements, thus everything the Party says is true.
Somewhere underneath a lonely headstone, Orwell is quietly spinning…
Uncle Clarence Thomas
.
.
“I agree with you – I’m a Constitutional scholar. I want to stop breaking the law. Now go out and make me stop doing it.” – Franklin Delano Obama
.
.
d. john
Uncle Clarence Thomas,
I’m pretty sure this the only thread where you and I have ever agreed on anything…
Just sayin’
Xenos
The courts are not very sure about the law. Not in this case. Either way, if Obama is in violation of the law, as determined by the court, he will proceed to follow the law. Or Congress could stop pissing about demanding Obama ask them for permission, and could go ahead and either pass a law approving or denying authorisation for the fighting in Libya.
Why is this so hard to understand?
ps: has anyone seen this lawsuit, or know where it was filed? I can’t seem to find any specifics about the pleadings. Do we know if Boehner and Kucinich, for all their bitching, have actually filed anything?
amk
@d. john – Are the US planes involved currently in the air-raids ? I agree US gave the initial air power but right now, isn’t it Nato that’s doing these raids and of course fucking up the mission ? And Obama did inform the congress critters about the initial raids within the stipulated 60 days, didn’t he ?
Corner Stone
People keep hiding behind “NATO strikes”.
“Well, we aren’t prosecuting this kinetic action, it’s NATO!!”
Yeah, who do we assume is NATO? Who’s funding this kinetic action? Who’s providing intel for targeting, surveillance assets, refueling and other logistics?
Who do we imagine has men on the ground lasing targets?
amk
You can’t ‘hide’ facts when it suits your narrative.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/mobile/world-africa-13828762
d. john
@amk,
Thank you for something substantial. I’ll look into it.
For the record, I support the Libya action as a lead by NATO, not as a US action, and the US should not be spearheading it. That is my personal opinion.
What I don’t find subjective is Obama’s arguments that the WPA doesn’t apply. If he’d simply said something like “we will be providing a supporting role in a NATO led action against Libya” I’d have no real objective issue with that, even *if* I had disagreed with it personally (and for the record, I actually do agree with that)
My problem with the administration is that it’s taken up the argument AFAICT is that the executive branch can just do whatever the hell they want. I already suffered under 8 years of that bullshit (and so did you)… It needs to stop.
When this admin argues that bombing does not count as hostile action, the upshot is that they are basically arguing for a continuation of the Bush mode of governance… Haven’t we lived through of that enough already? The executive branch is not above our checks and balances.
see http://balkin.blogspot.com/2011/06/george-w-obama-and-olc.html
and digby’s blog.. for the record, in this case, I agree with her.
Xenos
NATO is not some imaginary entity. In this case it is mostly French and British planes, British special forces (in the news, the French are probably out and about too). Given the political history of things it would be stupid to have the Americans or the Italians on the ground.
The US Navy and Air Force are coordinating everything, with NATO officers making the operational decisions – some are American but most are not. And the Americans are sending in drones with bombs, albeit that has not been a major focus of operations, and may well have stopped ahead of the deadline today. We had airplanes dropping bombs a few weeks ago, but not recently, at least according to available reports.
Edit: By ‘available reports’ I mean what I have seen on the TV machine, on France24, DW (English), BBC, and al-Jazeera.
amk
@ d. john – Let’s do a recap of what happened.
qaddafi overreacted to the uprising and started killing viciously.
Vociferous calls from around the world (rightly or wrongly) for the US to act.
US, France and Britain coaxed UN in to passing a resolution (again supported by most of the nations).
Now bound by that UN resolution and Nato pact, Obama had two options. One is to ask the congress for permission. The other was to use his executive privilege to launch action but inform the congress within 60 days. Not surprisingly, he chose the second one (if it had a been dem congress, he might have asked for the permission first).
Now instead of all this song & dance and show boating about WPA, everyone might be better off by pressing him for getting a quick result from this mess that Nato seems to have created.
Corner Stone
Xenos, I may have missed it but are you comfortable saying what country you are currently in? Obviously you can say GFY.
d. john
Xenos,
I edited my above post to put in a link I think is relevant, but it broke somehow between teh copy and teh paste.
http://balkin.blogspot.com/
2nd from the top
This should clarify my position. And yeah I agree with article wholeheartedly.
There’s some googlable substance in there, far more than I have pull off the top of my head, so far. I’ll save some real-estate and just direct to that link. I should have in the first place. It’s not often I find anything I so readily agree with… In the case, though – the author nailed it, IMNSHO
ruemara
Except it is a NATO action. It is governed by a treaty and whether or not you like it, the definition of military engagement is not met by having americans or their agents providing intel. You guys keep acting like he broke the law plain and simple as in he stole a loaf of bread from a store. Could it be that there are 2, if not more, opinions on WPA in support of treaties because the law is not as clearly defined as you’d like? We are funding this, yes. And we’re providing logistics, at least in part. But we are not engaged in actual “hostilities” or a “war” because the definition of that according to law is not as simple as “we’re lobbing bombs at them, duh.” Fucking government isn’t that simple. I know there’s an awful lot of international law specialists posting in BJ comments section, so how about some acknowledgement of those factors? I’d also like to point out that if this is an action that we’re roped into due to treaty, then it could be that by considering the make up of the Congress, this was the action that was chosen to allow support to allies, while withholding any more involvement that our allies would have preferred. I am fairly sure that enough members of Congress, particularly the House, would have voted against an open declaration of war due to either paranoia over the UN, debt fears or anti-war feelings. Considering the time frame for the decision, I’m not sure it could have happened in any sort of decent time.
I…have extreme doubts about this action. I would prefer that any democratic movements come from within a country, not outside. I am not convinced the rebels can form a coherent strategy to take Libya, nor form a stable, marginally democratic, prosperous, government. And I’d prefer it wasn’t my problem, it was Libya’s problem, along with France & Britain. I think the legal explanations of the administration are the perfect example of legal hair-splitting and torturous logic. I may see what they’re getting at, but I don’t like it. If we do not fulfill the obligations of the treaty, where does that leave NATO? Do you believe that our current Congress would actually support our legitimate alliance agreements with any real speed or lack of partisan bullshittery? This isn’t just American legal wrangling over 1 issue, this is multiple layers of legal issues and trying to boil it down to just “ZOMG the President declared war” when he hasn’t, is a mistake.
AAA Bonds
I thought they were suing fuck out of the President???
AAA Bonds
@Xenos:
Endlessly amused by the appetite of Americans for propaganda from their government.
The drones with bombs “may have stopped”. All the news reports are on “NATO planes” and “NATO bombs” and the people spoonfeeding the press often never get around to telling them which NATO country they’re talking about.
Here’s what’s up: AMERICA IS AT WAR IN LIBYA.
If you somehow forgot, in early April we were told by top military officials in a Congressional hearing that all our combat operations would stop. Two months later, that clearly hasn’t happened.
They will continue to lie, obfuscate, and do whatever is necessary to pursue their “humanitarian” mission of replacing the Gaddafi government (the declared objective in Libya of member countries).
They consider these, as Bush did, “noble” lies, that are necessary to pursue end goals that go back across multiple administrations of political elites. There’s no guilt in lying to the American people when the end is so virtuous, is there? Of course not! And who likes Gaddafi? How could this POSSIBLY go wrong?
I’ve been laughing in outright disbelief that Americans are so uninformed about NATO that our government can use it as a smokescreen for its war in Libya. “NATO? What’s that? Must mean it’s not the United States, even though Gates repeatedly said we’re shouldering the burden!”
But probably they aren’t that dumb, at least, not by accident.
One might almost believe that liberals don’t WANT to face the facts of what is happening in Libya, and are eagerly grasping at whatever straws the administration lets flutter their way.
Xenos
CS – I am in Luxembourg, which is an interesting spot to try to keep up with European politics. Better cable news than the states, by a wide margin. That news goes into some detail about the French and British roles, and talks about how Obama and Clinton had to be dragged into a supporting role, probably by pressuring them on continued NATO involvement in Afghanistan which is extremely unpopular here. Either way, this is Sarkozy’s baby, as he put this together and pushed it through the NATO hierarchy, probably as a favor to Berlusconi, who has a sovereign debt liability to the French Banks about 10 times larger than the Greeks.
Entangling alliances, indeed.
d. John – I can’t find much to disagree with as far as Balkin goes. I think it is a very important point that while W. manipulated the legal review process to avoid accountability, Obama is not doing anything like that. If he is wrong and he loses this case then this will definitely harm him politically. I am willing to forgive Obama for being wrong if he is going to be responsible for it.
amk
@ AAA Bonds – All caps and bolding. That’s the ticket. Yup, I’m convinced.
Xenos
Prove it.
AAA Bonds
Does no one study the wars in Vietnam? Laos? Cambodia? Pakistan? Yemen?
How do you come out the other side of these and conclude that we should trust what the executive prosecutor of an American war has to say to us about motives, tactics, and goals?
If you forgot, we became secretly involved in Yemen years ago, bombing Islamists there, while working with Saleh’s government to convince the international community (and the American press) that Saleh’s forces were the ones doing the bombing.
When that smokescreen dissolved, we also shifted in our policy toward Saleh re: his rebellious populace, and unsurprisingly, continued the bombings publicly.
Why is that unsurprising? Well, because when Americans found out that we’d been secretly waging war in Yemen and our government had been lying to us and everyone else about it, very few Americans reacted with hostility toward the government that had been lying to them. (Remember, they hadn’t just been keeping it secret – they’d been lying outright.)
Americans have this “we’re in this together” mentality about national security that works great when we’re attempting to construct an atomic weapon, etc.
When applied to the government’s decisions to lie to us about where we are at war, why, how long, and so on, we’re actually surrendering to our enemies – those parties in government with contempt for the democratic process.
That’s one lesson we should take away from Iraq, because it’s universally applicable. Hell, I’d say we should take that lesson from the founding documents of our country.
d. john
Xenos, I don’t like his cherry-picking of legal counsel, or his assertion that bombing isn’t a hostile action.
However, in rebuttal to my OWN posts,
this just in:
http://www.digbysblog.blogspot.com/
top spot … maybe there was another thing going on I wasn’t privy to.
didn’t hear it mentioned here, so it’s probably worth a visit. I’m sure most of the regs here probably hit digbys blog too, but just sayin’
AAA Bonds
@amk:
LOL – I said that people would grasp at straws to disbelieve the facts, but I never thought someone would stretch so far as my HTML tags.
To each his own! I hope the kerning on your newspaper’s front page doesn’t send you to huddle, fetus-like, in bed today.
@Xenos:
You know, I’m loath to call anyone a propagandist, but you’re really pushing it.
I’m not sure if it’s just mastery of the media by the administration, though. All this “may have stopped” and “we’re not NATO” and “prove we’re in this war the Secretary of Defense keeps talking about where we’re outclassing everyone else involved” . . . maybe someone pays you to offer this rapid-fire deflection, or maybe you just slavishly adhere to what well-paid spokespeople tell you and don’t see dollar one for your efforts.
Either way, Xenos, they’re not paying you enough.
Xenos
I am sure they are paying me exactly what I am worth.
I am just bored, and procrastinating on work, and so on.
I am just amazed by the narrowness of this whole piss-fest. The fighting in Libya involves the US, but it is not about the US. Certain governments here (not ones I particularly like) have gone way out on the branch here, and the American left and the American right wing are getting their saws out with remarkable alacrity. Do you realize what a bunch of wankers that makes us look like? It is not like we need a functioning NATO with all our people still stuck in Afghanistan, do w?
As for the legal issues, there is enough of a gray area in terms of the definition of ‘hostilities’ that I think Obama would win a lawsuit over it, but much smarter people than me think otherwise, so I am not about to shout to the rooftops that the OLC is full of crap.
The biggest risk in all of this is that the case goes to the USSC and the fascists there use the occasion as an excuse to find the WPA to be unconstitutional. I am happy with any result short of that.
Examine your own motivations here – why are you screaming about illegal wars based on this remarkable milquetoast set of facts? What do you expect to accomplish here?
d. john
Xenos, I answered your own question simply by rearranging your paragraphs:
Q:
Examine your own motivations here – why are you screaming about illegal wars based on this remarkable milquetoast set of facts? What do you expect to accomplish here?
A:
The biggest risk in all of this is that the case goes to the USSC and the fascists there use the occasion as an excuse to find the WPA to be unconstitutional. I am happy with any result short of that.
See digby and balkans blog for elaboration on that point.
Precedent is a dangerous thing, and O. is continuing to push the envelope and continue our erosion of separation of powers, particularly with war. Once a power is granted to the president, all future presidents defend that power, regardless of party.
Xenos
I would say it is a bit soon to see if what Obama is doing here is some sort of crime. We will know a lot more in a week or two. Digby ended up with the right question: ‘why?’ I can think of some very legitimate reasons and rationales, and while I hesitate to give any politician the benefit of a doubt, I will not be fussing over unripe kerfuffles. Nor should you.
d. john
Xenos, to be clear,
I have thoroughly examined my motivations, and could ask you the same thing, using the same standards.
If you think I am concern trolling, check my posts in 2009 early 2010 all over the blogosphere
flamingRedDingo
D. john
david john
I am not hiding anything. You’ll notice almost universal support for his agenda in my comments. And vehement defense of him. At the time, I didn’t agree with everything he did, but still thought he was turning out to be a fine president – mostly. I felt the same way nearly the same way I did about Clinton (despite the Telecom Decency Act, bombing Iraq without UN support, NAFTA)
I voted for Obama (against my better judgement, but only because I vote 3rd party in prez elections on principle. – usually green – I want to see more parties get matching fed funds, and I don’t live in a swing state)
I supported Obama. I still do, on some issues.
Not on this.
I *will* level criticism of ANY administration when they deserve it.
It doesn’t come from some blind vendetta, and I am not a republican plant.
But at this point, I am fairly disappointed, and sometimes angry with him. He doesn’t appear to be the man I thought I was voting for. Nevertheless, I’ll still support him when he is right, and rail against his positions when I think he is wrong.
That doesn’t mean I won’t vote in 2k12, that doesn’t mean I stayed home in 2k10 either, and I certainly WILL NOT vote R.
People that do so? You have every right to call them out as pouters and whiners. But these people are not me.
I’ve examined my intentions. And when I criticize Obama, I offer qualified criticisms, not blanket statements of character or intentions.
Maybe you should examine your own intentions, hmmm?
ActuallyGeneral
You seem to be saying that it is not Obama’s fault that he is waging an illegal war. It is the fault of Congress for not preventing him from waging an illegal war.
This is like saying it is not the bank robber’s fault that he illegally robbed a bank. It is the fault of the prison guards for not preventing him from robbing a bank.
Not too solid a foundation for support, but if it’s all you have, I guess you have to go with it.
Oh and the next Republican president would not be able to also try to get away with pushing the boundaries of their war powers, if Obama had not tried to get away with pushing the boundaries of their war powers in the first place. In fact, Obama’s actions have made contempt for the limitations of the executive’s war-making authority into a bipartisan consensus. Well done!
d. john
To be fair, a may have been wrong in calling it a “crime”.
You’ll notice I linked above to digby, and pointed out that I apparently didn’t have enough information to support my position in it’s entirety.
You’ll notice I at least make a passing attempt at intellectual honesty (when not being snarky, and usually you;’ll know when I am)
But you questioned my motivations, not my grasp of the facts.
So… what gives? What are “your” motivations? heh
d. john
ActuallyGeneral ,
+1 =)
ActuallyGeneral
Xenos,
Going to war to avoid looking like a wanker is perhaps the worst justification for war I have ever heard.
And our people are not stuck in Afghanistan. They are in Afghanistan because our President has chosen to stick them in Afghanistan.
Speaking of looking like a wanker, have you even looked at the War Powers Act? It’s really quite short. Here are the relevant lines describing the context in which the act applies:
As a native speaker of English, I can not comprehend how you can call this the least bit murky.
Xenos
My motivation is that I am irritated with all the manic-progressives turning this into some critical issue when, really, it is not. Maybe I am just a cynical lawyer, but if there is a gray area in the law and a client wants to operate in that gray area and is willing to pay the penalties if it bites them in the ass, I can find nothing wrong with that. It can be admirable, even.
It does not bother me much that Obama may be, or even probably may be wrong here. I don’t think it should bother anyone. As you pointed out, what has been going on in Yemen is much more disturbing, but that involved a government that was deeply corrupted by the W. administration and already had heavy CIA involvement. I don’t know how to unwind that position — any ideas?
But here we are getting our knickers in a twist over a limited role in a NATO engagement that has the full blessing of the UN. You want to pick a fight on this hill? What is wrong with you?
And from the perspective I get from watching it all unfold from Europe, the pettiness and parochialism of this debate is really astonishing. This involves serious issues, but it is unfolding very much within the boundaries of the law and constitution, without secrecy, and sorted out in the courts, with the end result that an ambiguous area of the law may at last be sorted out definitively. This is a good thing. I hope.
Ghanima Atreides
d john
so impeach him instead of pissing and moaning about it. had that discussion with mclaren already. if Obama is doing something impeachable, impeach him.
until then, stfu troll.
c.stone
zero. its just taking longer than I predicted. Probably because asshats like you and congress are giving Qaddafi hope he can hang on.
like I said, I dislike Humanitarian Imperialism and Right-to-Protect as doctrine because that is meddling.
For all I know Libya is just a headfake to distract the libertarians and wingnuts from the drawdown in A-stan and our undignified prospective rout in Iraq in December.
Libya is costing taxpayers 2 million a day.
Iraq and A-stan are costing taxpayers 100 million a day.
you are an assclown too, CS.
sry.
Corner Stone
@assclownjoke
You mean that whole time you were, “WR..WR..WRONG” about Obama’s Humanitarian Intervention?
Fuck you joke ass. You should rethink your shit here.
Corner Stone
You fucking joke. You proclaimed here that Gaddafi would be GONE in two weeks.
Fuck the fuck off.
Xenos
Clear as mud. We are offshore some miles away, we are flying AWACs well offshore, we are keeping soldiers, sailors, and airmen out of Libyan territory. We are supporting, under the NATO treaty, other countries while they do these things. We are doing a lot in that regard, but not sending forces. We may be still sending predator drones over, but that is an awfully thin reed to define US forces.
We have definitely done this stuff in the past, but not for the length of time to be within the WPA at this time. That counts as a good faith argument as far as I can tell.
This is a fact-based analysis. When this case goes to court, if it goes to court, the administration will have to testify to facts like this. If they do so honestly there is not a damn thing wrong with it. If there is a clear finding under the law that using drones counts as hostilities, is that a good thing or a bad thing? It is not good for Obama, perhaps, but I would consider that a huge improvement. Would you disagree with that?
Ghanima Atreides
I was wrong about Humanitarian Interventionism being actually Humanitarian Imperialism and Right-to-Protect doctrine.
But I still support Odessy Dawn for a myriad of reasons that I have detailed and documented. As I have from the beginning.
You are the moron that is having a meltdown over it.
Like I said, 2 million/day for the high probablity of an end-result arab state allied with America and NATO vs 100 million/day FOR FUCKING NOTHING BUT atrocities and a countably infinite supply of volunteers for the jihaadi factory.
you do the math.
d. john
Xenos,
“My motivation is that I am irritated with all the manic-progressives turning this into some critical issue when, really, it is not.”
What are you doing posting comments about politics then? Do you enjoy being irritated?
Find a political blog that doesn’t irritate you. Go ahead.
You get into a discussion about politics , that’s par for the course, if you can’t deal, nobody is forcing you to come here.
You’re basically saying because I disagree with a position you hold, that I am somehow manic depressive.
Gee,
I think your post speaks for itself.
Ghanima Atreides
c. stone
yup, i was wrong about that. But like i said its asshats like you and congress that are giving Qaddafi hope he can hang on until Obama gets impeached or sanctioned.
Corner Stone
No Ghanima.
You have repeatedly squeed here that Obama is a “Machiavellian Pragmatist”, and as such his decisions are by definition the good decision.
For you and your ilk, the ends justify the means. You couldn’t care less about the Congress or Rule of Law as long as the outcome you are comfortable with occurs.
You are an “ends for means” person. And that is clear with your repeated love for a Machiavellian president.
But that’s not how our Democracy works. You should consider shedding your Republican upbringing, and your desperate need for a Daddy figure to guide you through these tough times.
We are a nation based on Rule of Law for a reason. Sorry to disappoint you.
Corner Stone
HA! Congress is influencing Gaddafi’s decision to remain in power in Libya!
Yeah! Good call dumbass.
Gaddafi is more closely attuned to his country than you joke ass clown. He knows the “rebels” have no C3, but he’s scared to death of Congress.
Corner Stone
@Ghanima
You’re an idiot who repeats the same stupid nonsense about proselytizing over and over and over and over.
And God help us if EDK shows up anywhere on the tubes.
Joke ass clown.
Corner Stone
@Ghanima
Hmmm, strange that. Really?
No one here noticed.
Corner Stone
@Ghanima
Yeah, mainly because you believe in the infallibility of President Obama and how everything he does is secretly 11-D chess.
Xenos
d. john – I was accused (perhaps tongue-in-cheek) of being a propagandist, of have a dishonest motivation for arguing these issues here. I justified myself, I think. Now the fact of my stating my justification is being used by you to ridicule me.
So go screw. This is just trollery on your part.
You assume facts not in evidence, and evil motivations on the part of people disagreeing with you. My arguments also assume facts not in evidence (although they are in accord with what I hear from independent, non-American sources), but I state that clearly and reserve judgment until the proper process has been finished. You, however, ascribe cynical attitudes and evil intentions to people who disagree with you, because they disagree with. Why that should be the case is perhaps best left to you and your therapist.
Edit – I did not say you were manic depressive. I said you were a manic-progressive. Look to the online lexicon for a definition.
Cassidy
Someone hasn’t been paying attention for the last 50 some odd years.
d. john
I’m doing the math.
It looks like you and I have different idea of what ends justify what means.
I’m concerned that the way the current administration has handled the Libya engagement. It stinks to high heaven – the lawyer shopping, the ridiculous WPA argument, etc. It strikes me as a recipe for perpetual war. (Not that we haven’t already been engaged in that more or less for longer than I am alive).
Finding ways around congress and the OLC to go to war, to torture, to otherwise abuse the office and (AFAIAC undermine the constitutional oath of office – in spirit if not in fact) is something we’ve had for 8 long years under Bush, and considering Obama’s positions on various things, including THIS WAR, it seems he is just fine continuing this sick tradition.
It’s not that this doesn’t always happen it’s that now we are accelerating the dysfunction over the past decade or so. maybe 9/11 really did fuck us up.
We need a lot of things to change. We certainly don’t need somebody manipulating the system and attempting to make end runs around the boundaries of Executive Power. Considering that this was one of the big issues so many D’s had with Bush, you’d think it would be more concerned with this. I’ll go one better: I don’t know for certain of course, but I suspect that if Bush were engaged in this same kind of shit you’d be just as pissed as I am right now.
I didn’t vote for Hillary Clinton. This from her, I would have expected. That’s why I didn’t want her in office.
Cheers,
Ghanima Atreides
@cs
Like I said, I do not know what Obama is strategizing…I can’t read his mind.
I do believe he is a Machiavellian PRAGMATIST. That means he is going to what he can, when he can.
And I do believe in facts and empirical data. You and the libertarians can get all huffy about Odessy Dawn and ramp up the poutrage.
idc.
Qaddafi for sure plays to the press, and is informed on media. Like I said, asshats like you and congress are giving Qaddafi hope he can hang on until Obama gets impeached or loses in 2012. Or maybe congress can stop the Libya action and the Colonel gets to stay in power a while longer.
You are a useful idiot, just like Balko and mistermix.
and 11-D chess is so over. my favorite brand is 13-D naow.
;)
Cassidy
Your list of the “not pure enough” gets longer every day.
Ghanima Atreides
@CS
it is not nonsense or stupid. I SAID shariah forbids proselytizing the poor and ignorant. Its in the Quran. Freedom of speech legalizes proselytizing the poor and ignorant. Therefore freedom of speech and Islam are INCOMPATIBLE.
That means missionary democracy can never DEMOCRATICALLY take hold in majority muslim states.
Ghanima Atreides
@Cassidy
call it my list of the “not smart enough” and i’ll agree.
Cassidy
Call it what you want. I gives a shit. All I’ve noticed is first it was ED, various pundits across the spectrum, and now Mistermix. You have a very unhealthy obsession.
d. john
Ghanima Atreides,
NOBODY, Anywhere in the US gives two squirts of wet shit what Qaddafi thinks save the 4 star eyed hippies who put a facebook page together one day after hitting the bong too hard.
Your odds of finding any of them here is slim to none. Check KOS, or better yet, the “ron paul” fanboi hippy libertarian sites maybe.
The fact that you jump so easily to the conclusions you do about mistermix and the others seems to say a lot more about you than it does about them.
just sayin’
chopper
wait, we need to declare war on libya so we can fly predator drones as a part of NATO enforcing a UNSC resolution?
Corner Stone
@Ghanima
Well, then I guess no one should attempt it on you.
d. john
honestly chopper the whole thing is clusterfucky at this point. I think Obama’s admin is being shifty personally.
Xenos was at least right about the fact that we won’t know for a bit…
The safest conclusion seems to be that we’re still waiting for all of the info. I won’t feel I know for sure until Wikileaks weighs in a month or so after the fact on everything that is going on behind the scenes, as far as I’m concerned.
However, I’ll re dump some links to the best of what I’ve read on the subject, and we accepting that we don’t all know, we can at least hazard our own conclusions as to whats at stake.
Digby has been posting some very interesting stuff on the subject – her blog doesn’t use permalinks, but Ctrl-F Obama will get you to the relevant threads…
http://www.digbysblog.blogspot.com/
Also, there is http://balkin.blogspot.com/
who has at least a couple of thoughtful posts on the subject…
Also the usual suspects, but I’d like to hear Scott over at Lawyers Guns and Money weigh in on the subject (haven’t checked yet though)
d. john
Oh, Scott L over at LGM already did – reading now.
http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2011/06/libya-and-the-wpa
Ghanima Atreides
@d. John
of course not. But the Colonel is listening to what Congess says and watching what Congress does.
i jus’ calls ’em as i sees ’em.
i’m the grrl that made Reihan Salam cry.
@Cassidy
And EDK was a libertarian free market fucktard all along.
@CS
wallah….im a muslimah– im immune.
;)
d. john
Turns out Scott and I agree, sort of, but also he disagrees with who is to blame – and so in the interest of fairness,
I should at least provide a link to a good article that provides the best argument I’ve heard against my overarching position that this is Obama’s fault, primarily.
http://prospect.org/cs/articles?article=checks_and_imbalances
And I concede that he makes a valid point that it’s our congress-critters (again really, it seems you could apply the same reasoning to the Bush admin WRT Iraq so long as you overlook the WMD lie – heh)
Anyway, that said, I’m still not ready to set aside my distaste for how Obama’s admin is handling this. He’s being part of the problem, anyway you slice it.
I expect that of Congress – hoped for better from the man I voted for. And, congress’s failure to exercise their power does not absolve Obama of attempting to expand the office – see his argument about the bombings!=hostilities…
Cassidy
I didn’t say any of that. I just said you have an unhealthy obsession with the purity of people and the definition gets more and more narrow.
d. john
i’m the grrl that made Reihan Salam cry.?
Anyone that cried after reading your posts was probably laughing really hard. Either that, or ignorance makes them unusually sad.
You haven’t actually said anything of substance.
Which is why I treat you like a clown.
When you wanna change that, I’ll play nice ;)
Ghanima Atreides
@Cassidy
nah….its just a hobby. mistermix was one of EDK’s biggest
gullsfanboiz. i like to slip him the blade.It is not “purity” ….its intelligence and honesty. Like I said to Reihan, I dont want to ruin blogging for anyone.
I just want to ruin LYING.
Ghanima Atreides
d. John
if bombings!= hostilities against the sovereign nation of Pakistan, how can bombings== hostilities in Libya?
d. john
Ghanima Atreides,
I’ve scanned this thread and seen no instance of you calling anyone in any actual lie.
You’ve arguably accused people of lying, but that is all.
Not only that, your posts are just as Cassidy says.
You’ve failed to inform anybody here.
It’s not that you ruined blogging. Hell I’m glad you post here, even if you are flat out backward and wrong-headed as far as I am concerned. But I don’t read you for information. I read you for amusement.
Just sayin’
d. john
Ghanima Atreides,
Strawman – I never mentioned anything about Pakistan.
What do you know of my positions towards Pakistan, I really doubt I’ve even brought it up here.
Seriously, wow. Where did that even come from?
What are you even saying? Are you presuming to know anything about my positions on anything WRT to Pakistan? WTF. Just because you presume to know something, doesn’t make it true.
Ghanima Atreides
d. John
you said….
I am saying, droning is obviously part of US foreign policy atm. The US regularily drones Waziristan province of the sovereign state of Pakistan, a nominal ally of the US. In spite of repeated Pakistani requests to stop.
So how can bombing== hostilities?
Its obviously part of SOP for American engagement.
d. john
And for the record, I don’t agree with that either.
If you want to know my positions on American Hegemony, best you read some Noam Chomsky. Other than his insistence that America is not salvageable, I pretty much agree with him on our foreign policy. Including his positions on Israel.
See Failed States, See Manufacturing Consent
Ghanima Atreides
d. John
or just part of SOP for American foreign policy if you prefer.
;)
Ghanima Atreides
d. John
idc about your positions.
im more familiar with Chomsky’s expertise in theoretical linguistics than his politics. that is his domain expertise.
I think what you said about Obama on this thread is WRONG.
just answer the question please.
d. john
Regarding Noam Chomsky, I generally agree with his assessments of the problems, I don’t always agree with his conclusions, although I often do.
Ghanima Atreides
d. John
just answer the question.
if bombing != hostilities in Pak, how can bombing == hostilities in Libya?
d. john
When did you stop beating your wife?
That’s what you’re asking me.
I never claimed equivalence between Pakistan bombing and Libyan bombing. You did.
Your question assumes that I support the modern American SOP… I don’t. I believe the department of defense should be renamed the department of war, because citizens don’t like war – they shouldn’t. but they like defense.
I believe in rolling back our MIC. I believe in returning to a strategic defense policy, and scrapping our cold war relics.
You are asking me to claim I believe otherwise merely by insisting I answer your false question.
I won’t. I don’t support the MIC. I never have, I never will. You continue to assume otherwise for some reason.
And anyone that spends 30 years researching anything, and publicly speaks, writes books, etc can safely be called an expert on the subject in question, as much as anybody could – you used the word expertise, not me – just sayin. The fact that he is a linguist not withstanding. Davinci was a painter, but also an engineer. That statement of yours was simply foolish. Thew fact that you are unaware of Mr. Chomsky’s other areas of study does not mean they don’t exist. Again you presume too much. You are remarkably self involved, aren’t you?
Ghanima Atreides
d. John
you SAID
While droning nominal allies is part of standard American foreign policy, and cannot be defined as “hostilities”, how can you object to Obama arguing that bombings in Libya != “hostilities”?
It seems obvious that Obama’s position is valid, and your statement is false about his alleged attempt to expand his office.
Again, idc about your positions or who informs them.
I just care about what you said on this thread.
d. john
I challenge you to find any instance under any administration where I supported the expansion of executive power to declare war.
And I categorically reject the argument that the fact that other presidents did it before him excuses Obama for engaging in the same shenanigans, *particularly* in his case because he made such a big deal of dismantling the Bush doctrine. I have yet to see any evidence that he intends to keep his word.
d. john
If that wasn’t direct enough:
The bombings in PAKISTAN WERE HOSTILITIES.
BOMBING ALWAYS EQUALS HOSTILITIES.
Obama isn’t the first president to violate the WPA (in spirit, if not in fact). I was hoping that Bush would be the last, and we could all get back to pre-cold-war non-interventionist policy that served us so well up until we decided we had to nation-build to drive back the commies… call me crazy for wanting a sober assessment and realignment of our foreign policy if you must. Call me an asshole for being pissed that Obama won’t even attempt to expend any political capital moving us in that direction. It won’t change anything. At the end of the day, I’ll still hold our representatives and our leaders accountable for their actions. Maybe I’m just old-fashioned that way.
Ghanima Atreides
d.John
YOU SAID
specifically what ‘shenanigans’ are you referring to?
the one you named,
I have proven to be empirically valid, and not a ‘shenanigan’ at all.
How can bombings be hostilities if we are droning a treaty-bound ally against their stated will?
Obama did dismantle the Bush Doctrine. He has not yet dismantled COIN, the BD cut down to village size.
Hopefully that will happen soon.
/happyface
Trurl
This takes special pleading for Obama to a new plateau.
By your own statement, Obama has plunged us into yet another quagmire based on lies… and all you can do is whine how it’s Congress’ fault for not impeaching him.
CHANGE YOU CAN BELIEVE IN, BITCHEZ!
d. john
“How can bombings be hostilities if we are droning a treaty-bound ally against their stated will?”
I’d think that if we are droning anybody against their will, it’s a hostile action. Just sayin. Treaty or not.
And making a “legal” claim because you are exploiting or overly parsing the definition of hostile is STILL shenanigans.
The argument that bombing is not a hostile action is roughly equivalent to the argument that water boarding is not torture. It’s simply patently ridiculous – on it’s face – hence shenanigans.
Trurl
Remember “Hey, hey, LBJ! How many kids did you kill today?”
http://www.salon.com/news/libya/index.html?story=/news/feature/2011/06/19/ml_libya_26
Chuck Butcher
Jeepers, now we’re going to try to make an equivalence of Pakistan and Libya? I may not like the AfPak war but it is real easy for the warmakers to argue that actions in Pakistan are in regard to Afghanistan and involve hostile forces in that conflict. Libya has no role in an approved hostile action. You can certainly argue about if drones are now being used, who is using them, what has been approved, and etc but conflating AfPak with Libya is just stupid.
I haven’t managed to wrap my head around why it is a big deal for the Admin to not go to Congress – the window in WPA for action w/o Congressional footdragging and stupidity gave the Admin plenty of time to get ducks in order – including making clear that we weren’t doing something covered by WPA or that “here’s what we’re doing and it isn’t covered but you can pass a resolutioing backing it just to satisfy yourselves.”
There are some things I’d rather see the WH start a pissing match with the House over.
Ghanima Atreides
d. john
that is an OPINION. i thought the argument was LEGALITY.
c. butcher
how would that even be possible? We aren’t even officially at war with Pak– they are our nominal allies.
this argument is about LEGALITY not morality, or your personal butthurt over what you think Obama should do.
n/e ways i think Libya is kabuki on one level.
d. john
“I’d think that if we are droning anybody against their will, it’s a hostile action.”
“that is an OPINION. i thought the argument was LEGALITY.”
I didn’t confuse the two.
In fact, I conceded that further up the thread – the post where I say I went too far in fact in referring to it as a crime. I devoted a whole post to that, and even provided a link in rebuttal of my OWN statement (calling it a crime).
A whole post even. I didn’t bury it. It’s right there.
Try to keep up.
And I don’t give a fuck whether it’s illegal, it’s wrong, and bad for the country, and I expected better of Obama to engage in this shit. Or at least be so brazen about it.
Furthermore, for you to hold LEGALITY as the ultimate litmus test of whether or not I should approve of Obama,
by your standards, everything Bush did was okay WRT to the wars. Christ. No way am I gonna approve of what was done under Bush.
Those are some seriously low standards you have.
I hold the leader of the free world to a higher standard than what the courts have decided was legal at the time.
It’s legal to warmonger. That doesn’t make it right.
I stand by that. And yes, that’s my opinion.
Corner Stone
@Ghanima
Pretty much says it all about you.
Ghanima Atreides
Nor do I.
Bush is a fucking WEC retard dimwitted enough to believe muslims would buy into missionary democracy. Surprise! A lot of them would rather die…or kill Americans.
It simply cannot be done– when muslims are DEMOCRATICALLY empowered to vote, they never vote for freedom of speech and missionary democracy.
Bush was exploited by two smarter but far more evil beings; the rasputins behind the cowboy throne. Rove for a wartime electorate, and Cheney for a wartime economy.
He will go down in history as the Worst President Ever.
@CS
I am not especially moral i guess. aspies rarely are. its the lack of empathy thing.
razib usta call it mindblindedness.
d. john
Ghanima Atreides,
Morality is not something lacking in folks with aspergers..
Frankly your statement would offend me, and probably half of the others here who share the trait as well. Except that being “aspie”, I wont hold the fact that I find your statement that I’m amoral against you. It goes with the territory. We can’t help pissing people off.
At least you don’t seem to read Rand. I base that only on non-objectivist positions you’ve made on the thread. You must have some morals.
aspie!=sociopath
we just examine morality differently than most people.
Empathy is also not exclusive of aspergers, albiet much less prevalent… aspergers, is essentially high functioning autism, which is a clusterfark of many traits… a lot of non-aspie people are not empathetic as well. It’s just one of many personality traits on the human continuum… it’s common in aspie, but not exclusive.
Corner Stone
@Ghanima
Bullshit. You proclaim aspie as a crutch to shield your fucked worldview.
Stop hiding.
Ghanima Atreides
meh.
i don’t need morality, i have science; evo theory of altruism, evo theory of cooperation, the spare and elegant tautologies of the selfish genes.
;)
Corner Stone
Hilarious. Ends justify the means. And fuck the rest.
Good enough.
lawlz
;-)
d. john
Science is great.
One of the nice things about science is that it is reflective of changes in evidence.
No science has ever proven impervious to reflection. It’s evolutionary, not concrete.
It also isn’t the proper tool for observing certain human dynamics. There is higher math for music, but no formula to make good songs. Science doesn’t even go there.
Morals are a similar construction. They are not empirically measurable. Your evo Science is probably half junk science (to be fair, i consider psychiatry the same way). It won’t give you the answers to non empirical problems.
I could argue that prayer in tandem with western medicine achieves a measurably better result than medicine alone according to numerous studies. Therefore, praying for people to get well is the most logical thing to do if you want them to heal. See how that works?
The real world is too complex for your simplistic statement.
Ghanima Atreides
d. John
blah blah blah-de-blahblah
The efficacy of prayer has been proven to only work for the host system….like meditation.
meditation increases grey matter
d. john
The philosophical controversy on this topic even involves the basic issues of statistical inference and falsifiability as to what it may mean to “prove” or “disprove” something, and the problem of demarcation, i.e., as to whether this topic is even within the realm of science at all.
(from Wiki)
So assuming it doesn’t harm, the question of whether it’s logical comes down to, is it worth the time involved, on the chance it works.
And if there is some sort of science to the arts, they wouldn’t be arts. Your position is naive if you basically write off half of academia as useless.
At the very least you are an Empiricist, not a rationalist:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/rationalism-empiricism/
Not that you are wrong, but Einstein made the switch when he studied gravity. It might be worthwhile to for you look into the difference. Just sayin’
Ghanima Atreides
you know nothing about me.
and still you wish to scold me.
of course the arts are science.
ima dancer.
the arts are the interstials between the classical and quantum worlds.
d. john
This is actually, the most precise conclusion I think:
http://cogweb.ucla.edu/CogSci/Empiricism.html
Your position is strictly Empirical, and does not allow for any information to come from outside the senses (science)…
Empiricism is the monkey in a room with five windows.
Rationalism is too abstract in and of itself, without drawing from observable traits,
but observable traits cannot possible describe our world alone. (Genetics, psychiatry, music theory, spirituality, art in general)
All become part of our knowledge base. To work strictly with empiricism is to have blinders to the rest of the world. You can’t see it all with science. Science relies directly or indirectly on our senses. Heisenbergs uncertainty principle even codifies a limitation of science in that regard.
Your statement is fascicle, and ignores innate knowledge, and belittles or ignores many of the notable contributions to human knowledge – those of artists, spiritual leaders (like Gandhi).
What about Steinbeck, Twain, Buddha, Jesus, or Martin Luther King Jr?
I write software. I started programming when I was 8. I like computers more than people. I know what it is to be a science zealot and an isolationist hermit.
I’ve prayed at the alter of empiricism. Most of my adolescence and my early adulthood. It’s a dead end man.
There’s more or out there than science can teach you.
There’s more to the world than science is capable of letting us in on. The science just shows us the parts we can get at with our 5 senses, and our perception of linear movement through time, if you wanna get all physics and relativity about it.
d. john
Your last post didn’t make sense.
It directly contradicts your statement that you don’t need morals.
Your position is inconsistent – with itself.
I’m not sure you are aware of that.
But you just argued for the “usefulness” of morals for the same reason you just advocated for the arts.
You don’t understand rationalism. I’ve provided links. I won’t suffer the board describing it. You really should read it if you choose to continue down this line of argument. For your own sake.
Ghanima Atreides
the arts are the interstitials between the quantum and classical worlds.
think about it.
;)
d. john
I agree with that statement.
But not just the “arts” morals are the interaction between us and grand causality and social interaction – The science behind karma in the overarching and distilled sense.
Science alone falls short, and ethics are situational (as much as some would argue that they are not – we have legal ethics that are different than medical ethics)
d. john
rationalism is the attempt to capture that stuff and quantify it – primarily through deduction, but with an eye towards “innate” knowledge. which may not actually be innate, but unquantifiable with current science.
Ghanima Atreides
nope. homo sapiens sapiens morals are a side-effect of glorious evolution.
the only pure morality is faana, union with the divine.
the arts are attempts at communion with the divine.
arguingwithsignposts
@d john:
You’re new around here, aren’t you?
General Stuck
If this ain’t Muskrat Love, I don’t know what is. I’m happy for the both of yooze!
General Stuck
yikes!! maybe not
d. john
for Gadswakes dude
“nope. homo sapiens sapiens morals are a side-effect of glorious evolution.”
A, i agree with you and you don’t even fucking get it.
B. You just claimed that you are less evolved than I am.
FTW,
you not only completely missed my point, you handed yourself your own ass, monkey!
Hows that workin’ out for you? Being a primate that is…
Ghanima Atreides
WTF is muskrat love, stuck?
i hate alla you. you should get that by naow.
Ghanima Atreides
ima primate with aspirations.
;)
d. john
BTW, since you seem a bit ignorant on science.
Evolution is a CAS.
CAS do not have side effects. Side effects are the desired result in the aggregate. CAS mutations are side effects. In the aggregate, all *prolific* mutations serve to prolong the system. Otherwise they would be weeded out. We have very few amoral people in society. We call them sociopaths. Funny, they aren’t multiplying in greater numbers than the rest of us.
If you don’t get system theory and you don’t get CAS, you can’t really understand evolution.
In the simplest sense – We have morals, because the “aberrant” moral mutations surpassed the success of the amoral ones. We’re here posting today because morals work, or we would be amoral. We’re moral because that’s what it took for us to get here.
d. john
General Stuck,
I don’t even know what that phrase means.
I don’t think I’ve ever seen a muskrat. Much less 2 of them copulating.
It kind of makes me wonder what you do in your free time.
Never mind – it’s a Captain and Tennile song.
I’m a little young to remember the reference.
I was born when the peanut farmer was president.
Just sayin’
Keith G
d. john, if you had more experince here, you would know that Ghanima Atreides’s thought process can best be compared to a gerbil on ecstasy.
Ghanima Atreides
oh for fucks sake.
i belong to a website that does nothing but discuss the Platonia Dilemma and the possibility of the superrational.
actually, they are. There are more serial killers in society than the expected probability based on reproductive rates. Also more homosexuals.
There is or are hidden variables operating on these population demographics.
General Stuck
it’s a song by Captain and Tenile, back during the late hippizoic time period transitioning to the early discocene era. I have no idea what it means, which was my way of saying, I have no idea what you and your new friend were talking about. But it seemed you two were having a moment, and I wanted to mark it in blog time and history by saying something mindlessly stupid, in that special way of mine,
Please don’t stop, keep typing whatever it is you guys are saying to each other. It is oddly comforting in this big crazy mixed up world we find ourselves in.
d. john
That doesn’t mean they are outbreeding us.
Given I misspoke, I think you read me correctly based on my previous statements and you are simply being obtuse.
They are still very much a minority. Which was my point about evolution and I think you know it.
Unless that changes – morals are winning out.
Have been for quite some time, as a matter of fact.
But who needs them right?
And you just used homosexuals and serial killers in a comparative sense, jackass..
Not only that, you brought them up in a discussion about morals.
who is the moral scold now?
Why would you even make the mental leap to such a comparison.
And in the same post you pounce me because you overly parsed what *I* said. How’s it feel when I turn the tables and claim you are a homophobe? I won’t split hairs, if you don’t
It must absolutely suck to lack as much self-awareness as you seem to.
d. john
Thanks Stuck,
We youngin’s need help with cultural refs from that period.
d. john
Ghanima Atreides,
That statement is outlandish. Provide some proof that they are outbreeding us.
Ghanima Atreides
you said
opinion, unsubstantiated with empirical data.
and what don’t you get about I. Do. Not. Care.
homosexuals and serialkillers are the same in their lack of biological reproduction (genetic offspring).
so what? did i say they shared any other commonalities?
d. john
anyway Stuck,
glad to provide entertainment.
the thread’s dead so it didn’t seem much of a hijack that it turned into this. OT, notwithstanding.
Glad to see someone here has whipped himself up some popcorn.
Heh. =)
Ghanima Atreides
One More Time
mistermix is just another useful idiot pimping libertarian ideology.
wtf is he even doing here.
d. john
no. but I obtusely parsed your post, the way you did mine.
“attempting to expand the office”
I provided links to substantiate that.
If you didn’t bother to read them, that’s your own problem.
Ghanima Atreides
/yawn
again, you provided no substantiation, just speculation.
go spoon with a libertarian. you’re another useful idiot.
d. john
give me proof that he’s dismantled the bush doctrine?
you said he did.
I want EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE.
Not some guys opinion based on evidence.
See how this works?
You are a damned tool if you think you’ll ever find hard evidence for MOST of the shit that goes on in office.
I don’t need empirical proof. Neither does a court of law.
Reasonable doubt for criminal cases,
Preponderance of evidence for civil cases,
So what prey tell should be the standard for criticism?
you suggest, I find the smoking gun?
that’s your standard?
fuck off with that bullshit
that’s just fucking stupidly epic failure to reason on your part.
d. john
Ghanima Atreides,
I’ll spoon a libertarian, if you STOP polishing obama’s knob long enough to come up for some air.
k?
Cerberus
Not going to get into the melee, but I think there probably is going to be some lingering effects from the fact that we were told early on in his presidency that he couldn’t do things like staff his judiciary or pass executive statements (to make people’s lives in the short-term better) because he was trying to bring back the limited executive and yet, when it comes to war, well, it seems no president is immune to its siren song in our Empire days.
There do seem to be a lot of set behaviors that democratic politicians find themselves unable to really resist against or defeat and it would be nice if we could find out what we need to do to allow them to do so easier.
Or at least hold them accountable and honest.
Corner Stone
“Ghanima Atreides,
I’ll spoon a libertarian, if you STOP polishing obama’s knob long enough to come up for some air.”
Doubtful. She’s going to wrap it up into some 11-D explanation shortly.
Ghanima Atreides
the Bush Doctrine, asshat.
Qaddafi is neither a potential or percieved threat to the US.
In Libya we are allied with the islamists, with the Muslim Brotherhood and the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, aka islamic terrorists.
Acting with NATO and the Arab League is NOT acting unilaterally.
Obama is acting in the best interests of the country of which he is the legitimate CinC.
And you are an asshat concern troll.
Ghanima Atreides
CS, 11-D is passé.
its all about the 13-D now.
Corner Stone
Yah. And you can bury your uterus in Waco because it just doesn’t matter.
Ghanima Atreides
Yup. The best thing I ever said. (props Cole)
Bury your heart at wounded knee or bury your uterus at waco, its doesn’t make a damn bit of difference to the cudlips.
Ghanima Atreides
i just have one more thing to say.
uh huh