Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to The New Coffee Room. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Hay Ax; This was in the Atlantic also.
Topic Started: Oct 11 2013, 03:58 AM (281 Views)
VPG
Member Avatar
Pisa-Carp
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/09/obama-acts-like-he-doesnt-know-hes-an-executive-power-extremist/279583/



It's often hard to tell if President Obama is lying to the American people or to himself. Is he willfully misrepresenting who he is? Or is he blind to his true self? Over the last five years he has repudiated many of the positions he took in 2008, but still talks like and perhaps likes to think of himself as the man who ran on change.

A passage from his Tuesday speech on Syria provides a striking example. The relevant passage -- an aside on executive power -- comes just after the president explains that he favors a strike on Syria to deter the use of chemical weapons (emphasis added):
That's my judgment as commander-in-chief. But I’m also the president of the world’s oldest constitutional democracy. So even though I possess the authority to order military strikes, I believed it was right, in the absence of a direct or imminent threat to our security, to take this debate to Congress. I believe our democracy is stronger when the president acts with the support of Congress. And I believe that America acts more effectively abroad when we stand together. This is especially true after a decade that put more and more war-making power in the hands of the president, and more and more burdens on the shoulders of our troops, while sidelining the people’s representatives from the critical decisions about when we use force.

What a fascinating paragraph! Even as Obama implies that he is a circumspect steward of constitutional democracy, he asserts that even absent "a direct or imminent threat," he has absolute power to wage war without congressional support, the Constitution and the opinions of the demos be damned. If the passage ended there it would be staggering in its internal tension. As Jack Goldsmith explained in detail, intervening in Syria without congressional sign-off would "push presidential war unilateralism beyond where it has gone before." Asserting that power without using it is still an extreme position to take.
Obama goes a delusion farther. Ostensibly because he hasn't yet intervened, even though he repeatedly and needlessly asserts his right to do so unilaterally, he casts himself as moving away from unilateralism and toward consulting Congress. The benefits are "especially true after a decade that put more and more war-making power in the hands of the president," he notes, "while sidelining the people’s representatives from the critical decisions about when we use force."

The grammer is priceless. Who "put more and more war-making power in the hands of the president"? In Obama's telling, "a decade" put the executive power there.

The absence of a human subject in the sentence isn't hard to figure out. For all President George W. Bush's faults, he sought and received majority support for the Patriot Act, the September 2001 AUMF, the War in Afghanistan, and the War in Iraq. Obama's expansion of the drone war and his illegal war-making in Libya didn't turn out as bad as Iraq, so it's hard to see him as a worse president, but Obama has done more than Bush to expand the war-making power of the White House. As for "sidelining the people’s representatives from the critical decisions about when we use force," it's Obama who went into Libya despite the fact that a House vote to approve U.S. involvement was brought to the floor and voted down.

Yet Obama complains about these trends as if someone other than Obama is responsible for them, and as if he has been and remains powerless to do more to reverse them. When Obama asked Congress to vote in Syria, no one forced him to insist that he had the power to intervene militarily even if a legislative vote declared otherwise. No one forced him to defend the extreme position that the presidential war power is so sweeping that it includes waging wars of choice rejected by Congress that don't involve any direct or imminent threat to the United States.

He went out of his way to defend that maximal precedent, even as gave us the impression that he was trying to rein in executive power that he claims to find regrettable and worrisome. It's all consistent with Obama's favorite rhetorical tactic: granting the validity of an objection in his rhetoric, then totally ignoring the objection in his actions. In so doing, he confuses public discourse and subverts debate.

We know that Obama is an executive-power extremist in his actions. He believes the president has the power to intervene militarily without Congress in places that do not threaten America; that he can order American citizens killed in secret without due process; that he can secretly collect data on the phone calls of all Americans; that he can invoke the state-secrets privilege to avoid adjudicating constitutional challenges to his policies on their merits; that he can indefinitely detain prisoners without evidence, charges or due process, that he can sit in judgment of anyone on earth, then send a drone anywhere to strike them.

Yes, we know that Obama is an executive-power extremist in his actions, that there are many steps to rein in executive power that he could take but hasn't taken ... and that he worries repeatedly about an excess of executive power in his rhetoric. What we don't know is the reason for this disconnect. After all, this ain't like Gitmo. If he really wanted to do more to shrink executive power, he could do a lot unilaterally, and no one could stop him. Is he trying to fool us? Or is he fooling himself, because he likes to think of himself as more prudent and moderate man than he is? Can he not bear the truth that he's a Cheneyite extremist*? My best guess is that he's trying to fool us. But it's hard to know for sure.

*It would be fascinating to look at the many issues on which Bush-Cheney and Obama take the same position, and compare how many times each was referred to in the media as "out of the mainstream," a phrase that faded fast circa January 2009.












I'M NOT YELLING.........I'M ITALIAN...........THAT'S HOW WE TALK!


"People say that we're in a time when there are no heroes, they just don't know where to look."
Ronald Reagan, Inaugural, 1971

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Axtremus
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
I disagree with Obama's rhetoric about having the Presidency having an executive power to use the US military to invade another country.

I am glad that Obama did not turn that rhetoric into the concrete action of actually sending US military into Syria. So that tempers the "extremist" claim quite a bit. (Then again, I do see that whole "NSA snooping" thing as a rather extreme exercise of executive power -- I really wish the GOP as an opposition party would stand up more against the Executive on this issue; too bad they haven't. The ACLU seems to be the only consistent force of good when it comes to protecting the American people's civil liberties.)

As far as Syria is concerned, Steve Miller has a succinct and eloquent summary: "Right now the chemical weapons are being destroyed at $0 cost to the American taxpayer, 0 American boots on the ground and 0 American lives lost, and we have the Russians (of all people) doing the heavy lifting."

The rhetoric was bad, but the results (so far) are good. How much of that bad rhetoric was necessary (or even just contributive) to the good results is harder to speculate and will take time to be determined.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
VPG
Member Avatar
Pisa-Carp
As far as Syria is concerned, Steve Miller has a succinct and eloquent summary: "Right now the chemical weapons are being destroyed at $0 cost to the American taxpayer, 0 American boots on the ground and 0 American lives lost, and we have the Russians (of all people) doing the heavy lifting." And rightly getting the credit.

Are you actually giving Obama any credit for this? He did nothing, nothing. He was like a babe in the woods on this.
I'M NOT YELLING.........I'M ITALIAN...........THAT'S HOW WE TALK!


"People say that we're in a time when there are no heroes, they just don't know where to look."
Ronald Reagan, Inaugural, 1971

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve Miller
Member Avatar
Bull-Carp
And yet he got exactly what he wanted.

Curious, that.
Wag more
Bark less
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
VPG
Member Avatar
Pisa-Carp
Steve Miller
Oct 11 2013, 05:57 AM
And yet he got exactly what he wanted.

Curious, that.
Where? He wanted to blow them up. We said no. While he (and Congress) were scratching their .......er.......heads,
the Ruskies stepped in and solved it. By the way, no chance they will destroy all the weapons.
I'M NOT YELLING.........I'M ITALIAN...........THAT'S HOW WE TALK!


"People say that we're in a time when there are no heroes, they just don't know where to look."
Ronald Reagan, Inaugural, 1971

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Axtremus
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
VPG
Oct 11 2013, 07:28 AM
Steve Miller
Oct 11 2013, 05:57 AM
And yet he got exactly what he wanted.

Curious, that.
Where? He wanted to blow them up. We said no. While he (and Congress) were scratching their .......er.......heads,
the Ruskies stepped in and solved it.
The chemical weapons are getting blown up. BBC News website has some infographic on the process: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-24116042

Quote:
 
By the way, no chance they will destroy all the weapons.
I think that is a fair assessment. I would certainly be very happy to hear it if you have a better idea that you think should be carried out to more effectively destroy all the (chemical) weapons. (Heck, you might even win a Nobel Peace Prize for this. ;) )
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
AlbertaCrude
Bull-Carp
VPG
Oct 11 2013, 05:40 AM
Are you actually giving Obama any credit for this? He did nothing, nothing. He was like a babe in the woods on this.
No, he had the wisdom to listen other states such as Russia and China with greater national interests in Syria than the USA.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
VPG
Member Avatar
Pisa-Carp
AlbertaCrude
Oct 11 2013, 08:05 AM
VPG
Oct 11 2013, 05:40 AM
Are you actually giving Obama any credit for this? He did nothing, nothing. He was like a babe in the woods on this.
No, he had the wisdom to listen other states such as Russia and China with greater national interests in Syria than the USA.
Good one, I may chuckle all day on that. We said no! I'm repeating, Putin stepped in and took the lead from him. And the POTUS went back to leading from behind.
I'M NOT YELLING.........I'M ITALIAN...........THAT'S HOW WE TALK!


"People say that we're in a time when there are no heroes, they just don't know where to look."
Ronald Reagan, Inaugural, 1971

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
AlbertaCrude
Bull-Carp
Actually VPG, the Russian always had the lead on Syria; even in the halcyon years before Obama. The US and their French ally just never realised it.

But go ahead and chuckle all the same- if nothing else, it's cathartic. Soon there may very well be a civil war in the region where vital US interests are at stake:

http://www.straight.com/news/501986/gwynne-dyer-violence-rises-iraq-midst-scandal-around-bogus-bomb-surveillance-devices
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Copper
Member Avatar
Shortstop
Steve Miller
Oct 11 2013, 05:57 AM
And yet he got exactly what he wanted.

Curious, that.

Anything the Russians or Syrians may have done concerning the wmd has nothing to do with Mr. Obama and his red line.

He drew the line then tripped over it when his bluff was called.

He came off looking like the chump that he was for opening his mouth in the first place.

The events that occurred after he turned tail are unrelated to anything he wanted.
The Confederate soldier was peculiar in that he was ever ready to fight, but never ready to submit to the routine duty and discipline of the camp or the march. The soldiers were determined to be soldiers after their own notions, and do their duty, for the love of it, as they thought best. Carlton McCarthy
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Axtremus
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Whether President Obama "leads from behind" or does nothing at all ... I'm still glad that we're not sending our military to burn a few dozen $Billions fighter yet another war.

Argue about style or attribution of credit all you want, the results still look pretty good to me for now.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Copper
Member Avatar
Shortstop
Axtremus
Oct 11 2013, 11:38 AM

Argue about style or attribution of credit all you want, the results still look pretty good to me for now.

One result is that Mr. Obama has clearly lost a great deal of credibility and respect in the global community. Especially in that community of nations that would do us harm.

That doesn't look pretty good.
The Confederate soldier was peculiar in that he was ever ready to fight, but never ready to submit to the routine duty and discipline of the camp or the march. The soldiers were determined to be soldiers after their own notions, and do their duty, for the love of it, as they thought best. Carlton McCarthy
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mikhailoh
Member Avatar
If you want trouble, find yourself a redhead
Process matters, as do the words of the US president.
Once in his life, every man is entitled to fall madly in love with a gorgeous redhead - Lucille Ball
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
John D'Oh
Member Avatar
MAMIL
One day there's going to be a thread about world politics that doesn't immediately become a discussion about how crap or wonderful the American president is.

But it won't be today.
What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve Miller
Member Avatar
Bull-Carp
Mikhailoh
Oct 11 2013, 03:24 PM
Process matters
Now you sound like Quirt.

I'm a "results" guy myself, and in this case the result is better than anyone could have hoped for.
Wag more
Bark less
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
« Previous Topic · The New Coffee Room · Next Topic »
Add Reply