Emperor Obama

[BS-87 30]

Emperor Obama is sending our troops once again into war with no Congressional authorization. It's a shame our country's CEO is acting with the war-making power of a monarch.

 

Onwards to Uganda, in order to form a more bankrupt union.

 

Here's what noted Republican Abraham Lincoln once wrote on the subject:

 

"Allow the President to invade a neighboring nation, whenever he shall deem it necessary to repel an invasion, and you allow him to do so, whenever he may choose to say he deems it necessary for such purpose -- and you allow him to make war at pleasure. Study to see if you can fix any limit to his power in this respect, after you have given him so much as you propose. If, today, he should choose to say he thinks it necessary to invade Canada, to prevent the British from invading us, how could you stop him? You may say to him, "I see no probability of the British invading us" but he will say to you "be silent; I see it, if you don't." The provision of the Constitution giving the war-making power to Congress, was dictated, as I understand it, by the following reasons: Kings had always been involving and impoverishing their people in wars, pretending generally, if not always, that the good of the people was the object. This, our Convention understood to be the most oppressive of all Kingly oppressions; and they resolved to so frame the Constitution that no one man should hold the power of bringing this oppression upon us."

 

 

[vol_scouter 365]

Seems as though the Nobel Peace Prize winner is a war monger at heart! His winning the Nobel Peace Prize has made an award that was suffering from only left wing ideologies winning and made it entirely a joke. Where are all the democrat voices that decried Bush now that Obama has attacked a sovereign country without provocation (Libya) followed by boots on the ground and now entering into another conflict when the congress may cut the military budget by a half a trillion dollars. Clearly, this is foolish for budgetary reasons as well as over stretching our military. That 40% of the American people still support Obama is most disturbing.

[CalicoPenn 729]

"Obama is sending our troops once again into war with no Congressional authorization."

 

You mean the Lords Resistance Army Disarmament and Northern Uganda Recovery Act of 2009 passed by Congress and signed into law which "states that it is U.S. policy to support efforts to protect civilians from the Lords Resistance Army, to apprehend or remove Joseph Kony and his top commanders from the battlefield in the continued absence of a negotiated solution, and to disarm and demobilize the remaining LRA fighters and requires President Obama to develop a comprehensive, multilateral strategy to protect civilians in central Africa from LRA attacks and take steps to permanently stop the rebel groups violence" isn't enough Congressional Authorization for you?

 

You are aware, of course, that PRESIDENT Obama is sending advisors in specifically to support efforts to apprehend or remove Joseph Kony and his commanders from the battlefield, right? Just like the LRA/Uganda act requires him to do, right?

 

You're aware that the LRA has been raping, mutilating and killing children, right?

 

"Clearly, this is foolish for budgetary reasons as well as over stretching our military"

 

And of course, you're aware that the number of advisors being sent in is about 100, right? That many of them are being redeployed from other duties with the Africa Command, right? Yeah - that'll break the budget.

 

You realize that this is a mission to protect civilians and bring peace to the region, right?

 

Nah - I would guess you don't know any of that - you're obvious hatred of President Obama makes you blind to any facts that will get in the way of your rant. I do want to thank you for piquing my interest enough to read up on this issue though. I'm glad he's taking this action now (though I wonder what took him so long) - if we can't stand up and support our President who is on the side of protecting children from brutal thugs, then what's the point of even being an American?

[vol_scouter 365]

Then Calico, you then had to be elated that PRESIDENT BUSH went into Iraq where Saddam Hussein was butchering the Kurds and there were UN mandates to enforce the no fly zones. Right? What about Obama and Libya? Why did we attack a sovereign nation without provocation. If we are going into Uganda for humanitarian rights issues, what about all of the other countries such as North Korea and China? Vietnam started with only advisors and we all not what a disaster that was. So is the left now supporting using military force all around the world and being the world's police? I thought the left was make peace not war. Ah, I get it, if the left decides to go into a conflict, it is OK but if someone on the right does, it is always wrong.

 

Obama has been ineffectual and wants to redistribute wealth (his own words) and wants socialism as seen in Obamacare. I have absolutely no dislike of Obama but his policies have failed and he is leading the country in the wrong direction. It is sad that 40% of the public supports his policies.

[Eamonn 61]

Just for the record.

I have to say that I find the title of this thread to be in very poor taste.

If it is supposed to be funny?

Then it misses the mark by a long shot.

If it is supposed to offend?

Then well done.

I'm offended.

Ea.

[vol_scouter 365]

Eamonn,

 

Would you have been offended if the title were Emperor Bush?

[Beavah 205]

Yah, thanks Calico for doin' the homework for the rest of us and lettin' us crib your notes. I'd make a comment about lazy political party hacks again but Lisabob might yell at me.

 

Yes, I would have been annoyed by "Emperor Bush" as well, vol_scouter. Can't speak for Eamonn, but I have to believe he would have, too. Folks are free in this great land of ours to make such comments, burn flags, call our soldiers murderers and all the rest, and they should be free. I personally don't think much of da practice, especially when the people haven't done their homework as citizens.

 

All that having been said, I agree with da sentiment of BS-87 and vol_scouter. While Kony is a fellow who deserves a short drop and a sudden stop delivered by a noose, da real underlying issue for sub-saharan Africa is agriculture. With a rapidly expanded populace, weak or corrupt governance, and impending food crises arising from combinations of climate change and global market forces, it is likely inevitable that Africa over the coming years is goin' to erupt in tribal violence. How much of that is our responsibility? Some, to be sure, since we've contributed in our own way to some of da causes, and cut back severely on agriculture aid when it would have mattered. But enough to justify military interventionism between warring tribes in an area of relatively low strategic import? At some point, rather than send our sons and daughters, those who feel a calling to help in that region should perhaps buy themselves some gear and head over as volunteers. If they took more time to truly learn da language and customs and economic situation and such, they might even do a lot better than a bunch of our kids sent on short notice.

 

Still, da President should follow the law, and in this case the law tells him to intervene. I've always thought that it should be required that any law passed by da Congress should apply first to the members of Congress and their families. It means more when you're sendin' your own son or daughter, taxing your own earnings, cutting your own health care.

 

Beavah

 

[Papadaddy 121]

"You realize that this is a mission to protect civilians and bring peace to the region, right?"

 

And we all know how that has worked for us in the past...

 

 

[le Voyageur 72]

This is a peace keeping mission, not a military invasion, thus The War Powers Resolution of 1973 - 50 U.S.C. 1541-1548 allows President Obama to act for the now without Congress's approval. Suggest also that the OP study the vesting clause of the Consitution, and the Unitary Executive theory...and avoid the fringe right memes, and dog whistles of the Tea Party...

[vol_scouter 365]

Just like so many other conflicts where we started out with only advisors. It is amazing how much vitriol there was for President Bush's policies where the same folks make excuses for attacking sovereign nations without provocation (Libya). I suppose that we should send advisors to Syria as well since people are getting killed there as well. It is time to quit being the police force for the world. The left should be screaming about this. I guess that the left ca no longer claim to be the peace party since they are supporting a war monger president. He has certainly made the Nobel Peace Prize a total joke.

[Eamonn 61]

"Would you have been offended if the title were Emperor Bush?"

While I was never a fan of George W. Bush, I respect the office that he held.

I would hope that here on a site that very well might be visited by Boy Scouts that we the adults show that while it's OK to disagree with others including the President, we are able to respect the office that he holds and each other.

Ea.

 

 

[BS-87 30]

I respect the actions of a person who upholds his oath to uphold the Constitution.

 

When our King decides that a chief executive shouldn't have war-making powers I'll call him President.

[Lisabob 13]

~ rolls eyes ~

 

If you want to look at the history of the war making powers, you'll discover that presidents at least as far back as Jefferson claimed the war making power without consulting Congress. And you'll find that this has frequently upset some in Congress who see it as over-stepping. Presidents have tended to argue that they have a prerogative to do what's necessary in terms of using military force (and advisers) without having to defer to Congress at every turn. This is certainly not unique to Obama, or to any one political party.

 

But perhaps you aren't a fan of Thomas Jefferson, either?

 

 

[vol_scouter 365]

Lisabob,

 

The Constitution is rather clear, only Congress can declare war. The rub is over deploying troops which clearly could trigger a war. The War Powers Act, which may or may not be Constitutional sought to develop a strategy to deal with the issue. Congress wanted to be certain that the President would not be limited to take actions when needed but if there was to be a prolonged commitment of troops, Congressional approval. The law has been generally followed by Presidents but they have sometimes notified Congress rather than sought approval. I believe that the war powers act is a good idea and would like to see a Supreme Court ruling that considers it Constitutional though neither side is willing to go to the Supreme Court for fear of losing.

 

The issue here is where is the outcry from the left about this use of force? Where was the outcry about acting a sovereign country without provocation (Libya) though there were a few critics such as Dennis Kucinich. The deafening silence and the a tacit or outright approval just tells everyone that if a liberal does it, it is OK but it is always wrong for a Conservative to use force. It just makes the left disingenuous. Beavah, myself, and others have criticized President Bush but the left on this list are mute when it comes to criticizing Obama. Do you all not see how self righteous this is? Be fair and criticize Obama as you would have it Bush had been president.

[Lisabob 13]

vol, the Constitution is clear about who gets to declare war, yes. Not about how the powers of the Commander in Chief may be used short of a declaration of war, though.

 

But to compare the situation BS-87 mentions, or even the Libya situation, to the Iraq war at this point in time is ludicrous. We've been in Iraq for how many years now? How many hundreds of thousands of our men and women have served there? How many American soldiers have died or been wounded there? What has been the cost of fighting this war, both in terms of money, reputation, and lives? For what reasons, exactly? How has that senseless war of choice worked out so far?

 

When the death and injury toll, not to mention myriad other costs, of sending a few advisers to Uganda (as Calico notes - because Congress told the President to do it) starts to parallel those costs in the Iraq war, then I will be happy to start this conversation afresh. Til then, equating one with the other is horse hockey.