A President Needs Good Judgment Rather than Experience

[Cancel 2016.2]

The resumes of Palin & Obama are not really comparable, much as people are trying to do just that.

I know, I know - executive experience, which you have summed up nicely as the ability to respond to a forest fire when you hear about it.

And besides, the GOP has shredded Obama from day 1 on the experience question, and it was McCain's campaign until he picked Palin (now, of course, it's "change," with little mention of experience).

You know, for everyone on the left that continues to harp on Palins experience, not one has shown where they see LEADERSHIP (executive or otherwise) on ANYTHING.

You are so unbelievably full of shit... coming on her crying about "lies" only to then turn around and LIE about what I stated. Go back and read what I stated about the national guard issue retard. Then come on back and admit you are a hypocritical liar.

 

[Cancel11]

You liberals are assholes - RString included.

That article so packed with bullshit I don't know where to begin.

 

[Good Luck]

The bolded part is EXACTLY why the War Powers Act has to be eliminated. Because this is EXACTLY what the idiot politicians will pull when it is used. 'Oh no, we didn't know he would actually go to war, we just said if necessary blah blah blah'

They need to either declare war or not. Period.

I strongly suggest you educate yourself on exactly what the War Powers Act does, and why it was enacted. This is not the first time you have criticized WPA as if its existence is why undeclared wars can happen.

WPA was written at the end of Viet Nam to give congress some authority over where and when the President can send our military forces. Unlike what you seem to indicate, WPA was NOT written to short cut the process of declaring war.

The power of the President as CinC of armed forces is very broad. He can send military force anywhere he feels it is necessary to national security. He does not have to wait for congress to declare war, and never has had to wait for congress to do anything. That was settled by SCOTUS at the beginning of the Civil War, and those powers have not been successfully challenged since. That is why Viet Nam went on so long, even after Congress withdrew support. That is why Korea happened.

So far presidents using military force have at least paid lip service to WPA since its passing. However, every president since the WPA was passed has claimed WPA is unconstitutional - NOT because it bypasses Congresss declaring war, but because it claims an authority of Congress over military deployment that they have not been granted by the Constitution. There are many constitutional experts who agree if a president ever challenged WPA, the president would win and WPA would lose.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

I strongly suggest you educate yourself on exactly what the War Powers Act does, and why it was enacted. This is not the first time you have criticized WPA as if its existence is why undeclared wars can happen.

WPA was written at the end of Viet Nam to give congress some authority over where and when the President can send our military forces. Unlike what you seem to indicate, WPA was NOT written to short cut the process of declaring war.

The power of the President as CinC of armed forces is very broad. He can send military force anywhere he feels it is necessary to national security. He does not have to wait for congress to declare war, and never has had to wait for congress to do anything. That was settled by SCOTUS at the beginning of the Civil War, and those powers have not been successfully challenged since. That is why Viet Nam went on so long, even after Congress withdrew support. That is why Korea happened.

So far presidents using military force have at least paid lip service to WPA since its passing. However, every president since the WPA was passed has claimed WPA is unconstitutional - NOT because it bypasses Congresss declaring war, but because it claims an authority of Congress over military deployment that they have not been granted by the Constitution. There are many constitutional experts who agree if a president ever challenged WPA, the president would win and WPA would lose.

Thank you for that. I agree the WPA would likely lose if challenged. My point is that the WPA gives the idiots in Congress a wall to hide behind. They can proclaim to support the "use of force" while later proclaiming that "they didn't really think he would do it". It provides them a cop out. They should be forced to take a stand one way or the other. No more of this chicken shit crap like the Dems are using now.

If the President decides to go something alone... thats on him/her... win or lose. Same if Congress declares war. But the WPA allows Congress to "support action" and then if the war goes bad pretend like they didn't mean it.

 

[Good Luck]

Thank you for that. I agree the WPA would likely lose if challenged. My point is that the WPA gives the idiots in Congress a wall to hide behind. They can proclaim to support the "use of force" while later proclaiming that "they didn't really think he would do it". It provides them a cop out. They should be forced to take a stand one way or the other. No more of this chicken shit crap like the Dems are using now.

If the President decides to go something alone... thats on him/her... win or lose. Same if Congress declares war. But the WPA allows Congress to "support action" and then if the war goes bad pretend like they didn't mean it.

You think it would change things without the WPA?

All that would do is create more claims of "I voted for it, before I voted against it." They'd still claim credit when things go right - even if they voted against it. And they'd distance themselves from things when they go wrong even if they voted for it. WPA makes zero difference.

Only mind numbingly blind partisans believe the "We said it was a last resort" excuse. And when that mind numbingly blind, any excuse will be believed.

The rest of us know democrats and republicans alike were fully aware of the consequences, but chose to ride the wave of popular opinion hoping it would turn into votes down the line, rather than vote for what they thought SHOULD happen.

 

[Damocles]

You think it would change things without the WPA?

All that would do is create more claims of "I voted for it, before I voted against it." They'd still claim credit when things go right - even if they voted against it. And they'd distance themselves from things when they go wrong even if they voted for it. WPA makes zero difference.

Only mind numbingly blind partisans believe the "We said it was a last resort" excuse. And when that mind numbingly blind, any excuse will be believed.

The rest of us know democrats and republicans alike were fully aware of the consequences, but chose to ride the wave of popular opinion hoping it would turn into votes down the line, rather than vote for what they thought SHOULD happen.

How do you think they would have voted if it was a Declaration of War?

Yes, it would change things if we forced them to take responsibility in such a fashion. When you are declaring war, there is no "I only thought we were going to poke him with it". It is a clear intention to attack.

 

[Socrtease]

LOL... We're really getting desperate now, aren't we?

Obama's judgment is questionable on a number of levels, to many Americans.

STUPID americans.

 

[Good Luck]

How do you think they would have voted if it was a Declaration of War?

Yes, it would change things if we forced them to take responsibility in such a fashion. When you are declaring war, there is no "I only thought we were going to poke him with it". It is a clear intention to attack.

A declaration of war never would have gone to the floor. If one were even drafted it would have died in its first committee hearing. Which means they could have said what ever they wanted, and later claimed to be on which ever side of the issue that is most politically expedient. The only difference is they COMPLETELY avoid the responsibility, and leave it to the office of the President, who, without the WPA, is free and clear to do what they think is necessary to national defense, as was done in Korea and Vietnam.

And again, anyone who claims they did not understand what they voted on was an intent to attack is a fucking liar. You know it and I know it. Every damned congress critter who said "aye" knows it -- but will never admit to it. The only ones who don't know it are the ones looking to give their side a pass on the issue. (Well, they probably know it too, but like their congress critters, will never admit to it.)

The only thing that would prevent such things and make Congress put their career where their mouth is would be a constitutional amendment that makes declaration of war necessary for any military attack on foreign soil by our ground troops. (With a clause allowing for reaction to direct attack.)

 

[Damocles]

A declaration of war never would have gone to the floor. If one were even drafted it would have died in its first committee hearing. Which means they could have said what ever they wanted, and later claimed to be on which ever side of the issue that is most politically expedient. The only difference is they COMPLETELY avoid the responsibility, and leave it to the office of the President, who, without the WPA, is free and clear to do what they think is necessary to national defense, as was done in Korea and Vietnam.

And again, anyone who claims they did not understand what they voted on was an intent to attack is a fucking liar. You know it and I know it. Every damned congress critter who said "aye" knows it -- but will never admit to it. The only ones who don't know it are the ones looking to give their side a pass on the issue. (Well, they probably know it too, but like their congress critters, will never admit to it.)

The only thing that would prevent such things and make Congress put their career where their mouth is would be a constitutional amendment that makes declaration of war necessary for any military attack on foreign soil by our ground troops. (With a clause allowing for reaction to direct attack.)

Which is why they use this inane 'out'. The declaration wouldn't have passed so... let's use this! Well, let's take it away and use the declaration as another layer of protection.

 

[Good Luck]

Which is why they use this inane 'out'. The declaration wouldn't have passed so... let's use this! Well, let's take it away and use the declaration as another layer of protection.

What protection? The issue is the President's ability to use the military unilaterally - a power that, according to SCOTUS, is all but absolute.

You are focussed on campaign rhetoric. Fuck campaign rhetoric. The positive aspect of WPA is (so far) presidents have at least paid attention to it and in most cases have folowed its guidelines. That is a good thing, because it does involve more of the government in the decision to go to war. It does not matter if they can do it in a way they can later spin when things go south, they are still involved. Removing WPA would end that and go back to the days of Korea and Vietnam.

Congress critters are going to spin and outright lie about their records when it is to their campaign advantage. Period. You aren't going to be able to take away their ability to lie and spin about their stance on issues. Meanwhile, ANY check on the president's power to use military force (even if it is essentially voluntary) is better than none.

 

[Damocles]

What protection? The issue is the President's ability to use the military unilaterally - a power that, according to SCOTUS, is all but absolute.

You are focussed on campaign rhetoric. Fuck campaign rhetoric. The positive aspect of WPA is (so far) presidents have at least paid attention to it and in most cases have folowed its guidelines. That is a good thing, because it does involve more of the government in the decision to go to war. It does not matter if they can do it in a way they can later spin when things go south, they are still involved. Removing WPA would end that and go back to the days of Korea and Vietnam.

Congress critters are going to spin and outright lie about their records when it is to their campaign advantage. Period. You aren't going to be able to take away their ability to lie and spin about their stance on issues. Meanwhile, ANY check on the president's power to use military force (even if it is essentially voluntary) is better than none.

Hence an Amendment. Why are you being so deliberately difficult? We need to get rid of the WPA and Amend the constitution for the intent that the founders made clear with a Declaration. Anybody sitting on their hands on this doesn't deserve their office.

 

[Good Luck]

Hence an Amendment. Why are you being so deliberately difficult? We need to get rid of the WPA and Amend the constitution for the intent that the founders made clear with a Declaration. Anybody sitting on their hands on this doesn't deserve their office.

Sorry, I did not understand your last post to mean support for replacing WPA with a constitutional amendment. Thought you were simply advocating getting rid of WPA.

 

[Damocles]

Sorry, I did not understand your last post to mean support for replacing WPA with a constitutional amendment. Thought you were simply advocating getting rid of WPA.

I advocate that as a simple first step. We can't keep allowing idiots to pretend that they "really, really, believed" that Bush wasn't going to invade. The American populace that accept that excuse are pointed evidence that we get stupider by the minute.

 

[theMAJORITY]

The quote from Palin during her acceptance speach, that was priceless, but did not get much notice---

"The presidency is not an office for personal discovery".

Priceless--but not noticed or understood by enough.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

I advocate that as a simple first step. We can't keep allowing idiots to pretend that they "really, really, believed" that Bush wasn't going to invade. The American populace that accept that excuse are pointed evidence that we get stupider by the minute.

You are absolutely right. They claim it because they CAN claim it. No one who voted for the Authorization to use Military Force in Iraq, had any misconceptions about what that meant. The president did not need a Congressional Authorization to use Military Force to enable "diplomatic effort" at all. To argue, after the fact, that they thought this was all they were authorizing, is laughable. They voted to go to war, and at the first signs of things going bad, they started doing what Dems do best... SPIN!

 

[Bonestorm]

You are absolutely right. They claim it because they CAN claim it. No one who voted for the Authorization to use Military Force in Iraq, had any misconceptions about what that meant. The president did not need a Congressional Authorization to use Military Force to enable "diplomatic effort" at all. To argue, after the fact, that they thought this was all they were authorizing, is laughable. They voted to go to war, and at the first signs of things going bad, they started doing what Dems do best... SPIN!

I suppose you realize that this entire argument rests on the premise that the president is a liar and that he lied to both the American people and to Congress.

Not that I disagree, but I didn't think you thought Preznit Bush was a liar.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

I suppose you realize that this entire argument rests on the premise that the president is a liar and that he lied to both the American people and to Congress.

Not that I disagree, but I didn't think you thought Preznit Bush was a liar.

He's not. If people were ignorant enough to think he needed a Congressional Authorization to Use Military Force in Iraq, in order to execute diplomacy, they are idiots. Diplomacy had been executed, for 12 years, as a matter of fact, with no results. You are taking an argument made by the Administration, and twisting it into a lie. In order for FURTHER diplomacy to have any chance of working, it was imperative to back it with an Authorization to use force by Congress. That wasn't a guarantee that only diplomacy was on the table, it was a statement of logical fact. The president didn't need the Authorization to be diplomatic! If he had, it would have been called, The Authorization to Use Diplomacy in Iraq... it wasn't called that.

 

[Onceler]

He's not. If people were ignorant enough to think he needed a Congressional Authorization to Use Military Force in Iraq, in order to execute diplomacy, they are idiots. Diplomacy had been executed, for 12 years, as a matter of fact, with no results. You are taking an argument made by the Administration, and twisting it into a lie. In order for FURTHER diplomacy to have any chance of working, it was imperative to back it with an Authorization to use force by Congress. That wasn't a guarantee that only diplomacy was on the table, it was a statement of logical fact. The president didn't need the Authorization to be diplomatic! If he had, it would have been called, The Authorization to Use Diplomacy in Iraq... it wasn't called that.

You really have a hard time with that resolution; you need to read through it again.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

You really have a hard time with that resolution; you need to read through it again.

I don't have a hard time with it at all, and I've read it a hundred times, at least. The title of the thing is: AUTHORIZATION TO USE MILITARY FORCE IN IRAQ... I think it is pretty fucking clear what is is an authorization for, and it ain't "diplomacy!"

 

[theMAJORITY]

Show me the good judgement or experience Obama is famous for. "Just words--just speaches"--that is all he has ever done.