Trust Obama?

We have to, because his “war powers” have no effective bounds

Last week, Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) tried to get the Senate to adopt candidate Barack Obama’s core principle of presidential warmaking powers.

Paul added an amendment to a bill that would adopt as the “sense of the Senate” the following quote from candidate Obama: “The president does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.”

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) was having none of it, refusing to let the bill come to a vote. Sen. Paul wrote him a letter explaining why it was so important, which read in part:

The motion Senator Paul made has the vote as the pending business in the Senate, ready for a vote at any time. He did not ask for extended debate…

It will be the only 30 minutes spent on discussing and voting on whether or not the President has the power under the Constitution to attack another country without congressional authorization.

We believe the answer is that he does not. We also believe Congress has an obligation to stand up and declare whether or not we intend to hold the President to his constitutional oath…..

Voting for whether or not to send our sons and daughters to war is the most important and most difficult decision we should ever make as a nation and as senators. We do not take this responsibility lightly, and we believe the Senate is abdicating its responsibility at this very moment.

The bombing and military action against the Libyan government will be two weeks old by the time we return to session next week. That means congressional debate on this war is two weeks overdue.

Yesterday the Senate did vote—90-10—to table the proposal. It was, said Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), who was one of the 90, “too cute by half” to even rhetorically hold the president to either the views he was elected on, or to the Constitution. Paul said, of congressional pusillanimity on their warmaking powers, "The new motto of Congress appears to be, ‘Tread on me. Please, tread on me.’”

Not that it would have mattered to the Obama administration. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had already told Congress that the executive would not feel constrained by any attempt by Congress to assert its authority. She magnanimously offered, though, for the legislative branch to become part of the team—“the administration welcomes the support of Congress in whatever form that they want to express that support."

The president can’t wage this war in Libya legally. The Constitution prohibits it, giving the power to start non-defensive wars unequivocally to Congress. So, theoretically, does the 1973 War Powers Resolution (WPR), even though it's far more forgiving of executive power than the Constitution.

Sec. 1541 of the WPR lists a specific set of circumstances under which a president can deploy combat troops. Libya doesn’t qualify. It says that minus specific congressional declaration or authorization the president needs “a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.”

That didn’t happen. Even on a looser conception of “threat,” and although it’s obvious and didn’t need saying, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates admits that the Libya situation was no threat to the United States. (And while it has nothing to do with his authority to send American troops into action, even the president’s claims that he was stopping a reasonably expectable humanitarian catastrophe doesn’t hold up.) Still, the WPR goes on in Sect. 1544(b) to give the president carte blanche for 90 days worth of free warmaking. And presidents have mostly ignored the WPR since it passed anyway. Reagan sent troops into Lebanon and Grenada and bombed Libya without asking congressional sanction. On his own recognizance, Clinton hit Iraq, Somali, and Bosnia with American military might.

As detailed in Louis Fisher and David Grey Adler's 1998 article“The War Powers Resolution: Time to Say Goodbye," a fascinating essay on how the WPR gives presidents more war powers than they constitutionally deserve, various congressmen tried to sue the Reagan administration for violating the act, but courts dismissed the cases as beyond their jurisdiction.

Even Obama’s official notification to Congress that the Libyan intervention was beginning used the phrase “consistent with” the WPR, not “pursuant to"—a technicality that means that even the 90 day clock (60 days plus a 30 day extension) of unlimited presidential authority isn’t even technically triggered.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Ky Voter||

    Paul ain't perfect, but you've got to get a little excited about how damned tenacious he's been so far.

  • Douglas Fletcher||

    ++

  • ||

    Yeah, I was fairly skeptical of Rand (and still am, for that matter) but so far he's far exceeded my expectations, modest as they may have been.

  • Ky Voter||

    Sen. Paul wrote him a letter explaining why it was so important, which read in part:

    The motion Senator Paul made has the vote as the pending business in the Senate, ready for a vote at any time. He did not ask for extended debate…"

    Plus he evidently refers to himself in third-person, which is nice.

  • Bob Dole||

    Bob Dole agrees.

  • ||

    Rand likes spicy chicken!

  • Brian Doherty||

    The letter technically was signed by more people than just Paul, hence the third person.

  • Rich||

    [If Obama] and I were in a room and disagreed about some issue on which I had any doubt at all, I'd literally trust his judgment over my own.

    What percentage of Americans adhere to that sentiment?

  • asdf||

    They couldn't tell you with Obama's dick in their mouths.

  • ||

    They'll trust him as long as gas prices don't rise and American Idol doesn't get interrupted with war news.

  • Realist||

    Too late.

  • Barack Obama||

    Get used to higher gas prices suckers.

  • Bush ||

    High gas price are Obama's fault?

    Even I don't believe that one.

  • sevo||

    Bush |4.6.11 @ 6:15PM|#
    "High gas price are Obama's fault?
    Even I don't believe that one."

    May not be his "fault", but he ain't helping:
    http://www.libertyunbound.com/node/519

  • rather ||

    We should be drilling but Bush should have made the Arabs pay when we saved their asses. Their kids hid out in parisian discos while we dealt with Iraq-their problem

  • ||

    As a general thing, I wouldn't blame high gas prices on the president, except for the fact that they claim to "run" the economy. Well, guess what: he doesn't just get to take credit for things that go well. If he is "running" the economy then he's responsible for every damn thing that happens.

    Of course the president doesn't run the economy. The notion that he does is a ridiculous fairy tale that only statists are stupid enough to believe. But if that's his story then damn it I expect him to be consistent about it.

  • ||

    The President does run the Department of the Interior and the EPA, which have taken some rather major steps to limit the domestic supply of oil, present and future.

  • ||

    all the dumb ones.

  • The Fringe Economist||

    just about every Obama supporter has told me that they "just trust him"

  • ||

    Incidentally, the 10 voting in favor of Paul were all Republicans: the Mainer ladies, DeMint (SC), Ensign (NV), Johnson (WI), Lee (UT), Moran (KS), Paul (KY), Sessions (AL) and Toomey (PA). That's a pair of moderates, five freshmen, and DeMint, Ensign, and Sessions.

    I believe that means that 4 of the 10 also supported DADT repeal, the Mainers, Toomey, and Ensign. (Toomey publicly but wasn't seated at that point.)

    Rollcall here.

  • prolefeed||

    I'm guessing the other 31 Rs didn't want to set a precedent for strictly limiting presidents to what the Constitution says they can do regarding war, because they're thinking Obama is gonna lose in 2012.

  • prolefeed||

    Whoops, I meant other * 37 * Rs.

    Fucking elections, how do they work?

  • Otto||

    With math.

  • ||

    Or just because they believe in that, but whatever. Not a shock (however annoying the reality) that most (but not all) Republicans believe in strong Presidential authority in times of war.

    Interesting that the Tea Party-linked freshmen came out on this one. Also nice to show that being a Republican moderate is good for something (besides being pro DADT repeal) besides fiscal squishiness.

    Also demonstrates that if you're an antiwar liberal, the one thing you really don't want is a Democratic President. Team spirit is high. (Just like the argument one can make for spending and GOP Presidents.)

  • Jim||

    Now if only we could have gotten those same brave souls on board with Paul and the Patriot Act.

  • The Huckster||

    Where was that prick Rubbio? Destined to be a typical scumbag Republican I'm sure.

  • ||

    That would seem to create a perverse incentive. As long as there is a war going on, it's a "time of war." That gives the President a whole lot of de facto autocratic power.

    What incentive would a President have, to make his term a "time of peace", when that just hamstrings him?

  • ||

    "Bah! I defecate on your puny Constitution."

  • Fire Tiger||

    " I don't want to talk to you no more, you empty headed animal food trough wiper. I fart in your general direction. Your mother was a hamster and your father smelt of elderberries.
    "

  • ||

    Oh, so now it's a war:

    The Obama administration warned Wednesday that a federal shutdown would undermine the economic recovery, delay pay to U.S. troops fighting in three wars, slow the processing of tax returns and limit small business loans and government-backed mortgages during peak home buying season.

    (thx spam filter!)

    news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110406/ap_on_re_us/us_government_shutdown

  • prolefeed||

    I don't think anyone in Obama's administration will ever admit it is an unconstitutional war, however journalists care to accurately characterize it.

  • Whoopie Almanian||

    Well, OK, war...but it's not WAR war.

  • Meandering Nanny Goat||

    You tell 'em Whoopie! These Neanderthals don't get nuance.

  • ||

    I mention that rape-rape thing everytime my wife mentions something from The View. Which, come to think of it, she's stopped mentioning the View.

  • BHO's nameless mentor||

    Tulpa|4.6.11 @ 5:02PM|#

    Oh, so now it's a war:

    It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is.

  • ||

    Peak home-buying season?

    ROTFLMAO!

    Damn, that was funny.

  • ||

    Congress refusing to protect its prerogatives is one of the reasons we have Leviathan and out-of-control spending.

  • Realist||

    "We have to, because his “war powers” have no effective bounds."
    Only because Congress won't do their job.

  • Realist||

    ....it's job.

  • ||

    "its job". It is a possessive, so no apostrophe.

  • Another Phil||

    Ah, joe'z memorial law. It's always funny.

  • ||

    Something's up at Fermilab. May be a new particle or new force (possibly) discovered. Think they're announcing it about now.

    Um, to tie this back to the thread, maybe they'll name it after Obama?

  • Gray Ghost||

    The following explanation of the results may be of interest: http://blogs.uslhc.us/a-hint-o.....ets-at-cdf

    http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxi.....0699v1.pdf

    In short, it may be a new subatomic particle. (they were expecting to find a Higgs boson, but it doesn't look like it's one of those.)

  • ||

    That's what I heard--not the Higgs.

  • ||

    Too bad Fermilab has to shut down with the rest of the government. Theoretical physics will be set back at least 100 years because of this Teabagger Kochtopus stunt!

  • ||

    Nah, we probably secretly own the LHC.

  • ||

    Just a few points.

    1) Doesn't this all suggest that if Obama wanted a congressional authorization, he would probably get it?

    If not having an authorization restricts Obama's ability to commit troops on the ground, then I'd rather he didn't have an authorization.

    2) "Voting for whether or not to send our sons and daughters to war is the most important and most difficult decision we should ever make as a nation and as senators."

    How many of our sons and daughters are in danger because of what the president has done so far?

    I'm not convinced our sons and daughters are in much of any danger. If the president had sent ground troops into battle, that's one thing. He should need congressional authorization for that.

    But If he's ordered subs to fire on anti-air batteries from somewhere out in the Mediterranean and bombed the hell out of Gaddafi's forces, forces who have little or no chance on inflicting any casualties on us, then isn't that something different?

    3) "The president can’t wage this war in Libya legally. The Constitution prohibits it, giving the power to start non-defensive wars unequivocally to Congress."

    Again, I find the question of legality to be...um...ironic coming from libertarians. If it's a stupid war, then we should be against it even if congress authorizes it, and if it's a smart war, then we should be against politicians and laws that oppose it...

    Since when are libertarians so obsessed with making sure everyone obeys the letter of the law--even if the law is stupid?

    With that obligatory bit out of the way, I'm not sure the Constitution is as crystal clear on this point as you're making it out to be.

    I'm not sure it's so specific about it being about non-defensive wars for one thing.

    For another, alliances are historically among the most effective defensive strategies known to man, and I'm not sure this sort of activity isn't covered within the context of the North Atlantic Treaty the Senate overwhelmingly approved in 1949.

    Like I said, though, the legality here is of secondary importance to me. If, however, what Obama is doing isn't in the best interests of the United States, I can think of a number of legal remedies right off the top of my head!

    1) We could withdraw from NATO.

    It's right there in Article 13.

    http://www.nato.int/cps/en/nat....._17120.htm

    If being in NATO isn't in the best interests of the United States, then by all means, we should get out.

    P.S. But anybody who thinks NATO hasn't been a net plus to the security of the United States doesn't know jack...

    2) We could impeach the President.

    Go ahead! It wouldn't be the first time.

    3) We could vote Obama out of office.

    Seriously. Presidents have been voted out of office before. They'll be voted out of office again!

  • ||

    Since when are libertarians so obsessed with making sure everyone obeys the letter of the law--even if the law is stupid?

    People who must obey the letter of the law as to how it restricts their actions: Those that arrogate to themselves a monopoly on violence here and abroad (in our name, to boot.)

    Pretending to a neutrality between ordinary citizens and state actors (and between laws that proscribe actions and laws that prescribe actions) is silly,.

  • ||

    Talking about the (un)righteousness of some action without taking the immediate consequences into consideration--that's silly.

    Unless someone's suggesting that we should change the Constitution so that what the president is doing is legal? Then saying that we shouldn't do what we're doing because it's illegal means exactly what it means.

  • sevo||

    Ken Shultz|4.6.11 @ 5:53PM|#
    "Talking about the (un)righteousness of some action without taking the immediate consequences into consideration--that's silly."

    Gee, Ken, who else justified the means by the ends?

  • ||

    If he was concerned with the immediate consequences, he should have intervened sooner. Apparently it's worth letting rebels die over a UN resolution, but not over the US constitution.

  • ||

    NATO's a relic. A reconfiguration -- in whatever form -- is overdue.

    I don't think it's illegal to be sending missiles into Libya but I don't think it's a good idea. Presidents and their administrations underestimate Congress -- my guess is that every foreign action taken against real or perceived enemies that we've done in the last 30 years would've easily been approved by Congress.

  • ||

    I agree, and I think that's a scary aspect of this many of my fellow libertarians are reluctant to recognize.

    The idea that the president would go to Congress because he wanted to go to war, and the Congress acted as a check by turning him down? That's basically a myth. It's almost a fantasy!

    The only time I can think of something like that happening was at the end of the Vietnam War, and that was only after we'd already been there for twenty years!

    We hate to think we're powerless to stop war-mongering presidents, and we love to think our representatives in Washington will somehow protect our interests--but as ObamaCare and TARP both show, there aren't more than a handful of people in Congress who give a crap about our interests.

    Certainly nobody with any significant amount of power.

    Anyway, that's one of the big reasons I'm a libertarian--because I think I can represent my own interests in a market better than some f'ing politician can represent my interests for me!

    That's what I try to preach to my fellow libertarians--abandon all hope! If Congress does us libertarians any favors, it will only be by accident. ...and if we can't emphasize the benefits (rather than legality) of what we're arguing, then our movement won't sway many away from trusting our Congress to do what's best for us anyway!

    In short, congressional authorization shouldn't give a war any more legitimacy for libertarians than congress voting for TARP or ObamaCare did.

    Anything that makes people question the legitimacy of the executive is a good thing to some extent, but then couldn't we say the same thing about Birthers and Truthers too?

  • ||

    ...and I also believe that the majority of American people would back their Congressmen/women's backing of the President's adventurism.

  • Jim||

    I'm with you, Ken. I was shouted down yesterday on here when everyone was creaming their pants over the Ryan budget. No one grasps that it's just statist political theater, designed to convince the "fiscal conservatives" that gov't is still the answer.

  • ||

    Mr Shultz, please refrain from commenting until your brain injury has been repaired.

  • DJF||

    “””P.S. But anybody who thinks NATO hasn't been a net plus to the security of the United States doesn't know jack…””’

    I know jack and NATO is a huge burden and a waste of US money. Even in the latest Libyan war it was the US which had to do the heavy lifting and the other NATO counties are providing a half dozen aircraft here, a half dozen there. Even the takeover by NATO had to be delayed because they are such a worthless bunch, it interfered with their weekend. The same applies in Afghanistan and in the Balkans where the US had to do the major work.

    Having the US as part of NATO has let our “allies” to cut their own military down to pathetic levels. It is just another example of where welfare destroys. The US pays 6% GDP (real figure, not the fake 4%) for defense while our glorious NATO allies are below 2%. They have constantly lied and said they will increase spending and then cut some more.

  • Jack||

    DJF is a fucking liar. He does NOT know me.

  • DJF||

    Have you forgotten Paris so soon?

  • ||

    Those Pershing deployments under Reagan, those were crucial to winning the Cold War.

    And Poland? They think being in NATO is the bomb! ...not to mention Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, et. al.

    To what extent is it to our benefit to have ABMs deployed in Poland and the Czech Republic? To think they're willing to make targets of themselves--just so they can be in the club!

    To what extent has Turkey's membership moderated its response to Kurdish separatists? I don't know for sure, but I think it's probably greater than nothing. And do you think Turkey's membership might might make a difference if Iran goes nuclear?

    ...and that's just off the top of my head!

  • DJF||

    The collapse of the Soviet economic system cause the end of the Cold War, and they would have collapsed earlier if the US and especially our NATO “allies” had not so often bailed out the Soviets with technology and economic assistance.

    As to the rest of your posting, I am not Polish, Czech, Turkish or any other European so I don’t see how subsidizing their defense at the American taxpayers expense is a benefit to Americans. I can see why the Europeans are in favor of it but I also see how welfare queens are in favor of welfare. Its not in my interest however.

    As to your specific point about Turkey, do you think they are going to war with Iran if they are nuclear armed? They would not even go to war against Iraq and Libya.

  • ||

    "The collapse of the Soviet economic system cause the end of the Cold War, and they would have collapsed earlier if the US and especially our NATO “allies” had not so often bailed out the Soviets with technology and economic assistance.

    Can we expect the "collapse of their economic system" to cause the end of North Korea? Because their economic system has been collapsing for decades--to the point that hundreds of thousands of their people starve to death periodically--and I don't think the end of the North Korean problem is anywhere in sight.

    "As to your specific point about Turkey, do you think they are going to war with Iran if they are nuclear armed?

    I think having an ally on Iran's border can only be to our benefit should it come to some future war with a nuclear Iran.

    Defensive alliances are like firefighters. They're not much good for anything until you need them.

  • DJF||

    So what do you expect to cause the end of North Korea if not their economic collapse? Or do you think that the US (6% GDP)subsidizing South Korea’s (2% GDP) defense is going to do it?

    “”””I think having an ally on Iran's border can only be to our benefit should it come to some future war with a nuclear Iran.””’

    Turkey is on the border with Iraq and they did nothing. They did nothing about Libya. And in Afghanistan they have refused to send any combat troops. I think their track record shows that they won’t fight against their fellow Muslims and do you actually think that when they would not fight against Iraq, Libya and Afghanistan who have third rate military that they will fight against a nuclear power? If you believe that, I have a bridge in NY that I want to sell you.

    “”’Defensive alliances are like firefighters. They're not much good for anything until you need them.”””

    These “defensive alliances” are worthless if they “allies” don’t spend money for weapons and come up with all sorts of excuses why they can’t actually fight. Besides which, the US has thousands of nuclear weapons and more firepower then most of the world, do you actually think that we need the such mighty NATO allies like Albania, or someone like Turkey who won’t fight against their fellow Muslims, or Germany which won’t fight anyone?

  • ||

    "So what do you expect to cause the end of North Korea if not their economic collapse? Or do you think that the US (6% GDP)subsidizing South Korea’s (2% GDP) defense is going to do it?"

    I have no idea what will cause the North Korean government to capitulate to reason...and neither do you or anyone else!

    And no one knew that the Soviet Union would capitulate to reason either! There were all sorts of things that brought about the end of the Soviet Union...

    Pershing missile deployments in NATO countries was one of them. Being bogged down in Afghanistan was another. Reagan walking away from talks was one, and Reagan changing course and embracing Gorbachev was another...

    Lots of totalitarian countries have suffered economic collapse--and come out the other end even more totalitarian!

    Nothing is inevitable. The relatively peaceful collapse of the Soviet Union was caused by a lot of different factors--and the behavior of our NATO allies was among the most important contributing factors.

    If we win the War on Terror...even as Iran (a real state sponsor of terror with a real nuclear program) continues to pursue nuclear weapons? It'll probably be with the help of our allies. ...just like it was in the past.

    I don't know what Yemen will look like in five years--but that situation isn't shaping up well from a U.S. security standpoint. I don't know what the rest of the Arabian peninsula will look like in five years from a U.S. security standpoint...

    ...but I know having an alliance like NATO was an important part of the reason we won the Cold War, which was a much greater security threat than the War on Terror presents. And it seems to me that if the alliance served us so well in winning the Cold War, it would be foolish to throw that away just because Obama dropped some bombs on Gaddafi and offered NATO some air traffic control.

  • sevo||

    Ken Shultz|4.6.11 @ 9:50PM|#
    "And no one knew that the Soviet Union would capitulate to reason either! There were all sorts of things that brought about the end of the Soviet Union...
    Pershing missile deployments in NATO countries was one of them. Being bogged down in Afghanistan was another. Reagan walking away from talks was one, and Reagan changing course and embracing Gorbachev was another..."

    Whole lot of claims. *ZERO* evidence.
    Hey, Ken! How much bullshit can you shovel?

  • sevo||

    Ken Shultz|4.6.11 @ 9:50PM|#
    ..."If we win the War on Terror..."

    Oh, oh! Missed this howler!
    Hey, Ken! When do we "win" the WoT?

  • sevo||

    "Can we expect the "collapse of their economic system" to cause the end of North Korea? Because their economic system has been collapsing for decades--to the point that hundreds of thousands of their people starve to death periodically--and I don't think the end of the North Korean problem is anywhere in sight."

    Yes, we can. Keep starving people and sooner or later, no one is farming the fields.
    What's your alternative?

  • sevo||

    Ken Shultz|4.6.11 @ 7:51PM|#
    "Those Pershing deployments under Reagan, those were crucial to winning the Cold War.

    And Poland? They think being in NATO is the bomb! ...not to mention Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, et. al."

    Whole lotta claims. Evidence? Not so much.

  • Anonymous Coward||

    The new motto of Congress appears to be, ‘Tread on me. Please, tread on me.’”

    Less "tread on me," more like "Please beat me! Tread on me! Choke me! Spit in my mouth! Rub dirt in my eye! Put your shoe in my ass! I love it like that!"

  • ||

    Still, the WPR goes on in Sect. 1544(b) to give the president carte blanche for 90 days worth of free warmaking. And presidents have mostly ignored the WPR since it passed anyway. Reagan sent troops into Lebanon and Grenada and bombed Libya without asking congressional sanction. On his own recognizance, Clinton hit Iraq, Somali, and Bosnia with American military might.

    Interesting. What, one wonders happened after those Presidents were in office.

  • ||

    Well, as Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-IL), it's only those Bushes who show such excessive and unnecessary deference to Congress as to ask permission before a war. If there's one thing W was known for, it was deference to Congress and a timidity in exercising the full war powers of the Executive, as is well known.

  • ||

    Hell, GWH practically genuflected in front of the "International community" as well, before Desert Storm.

  • ||

    Who's the Santana percussion player shaking Obama's hand?

  • Fire Tiger||

    I believe it's someone pretending to be Muhammad. Of course I also heard after he left this photo op he flew to Florida to personally deliver a case of Korans and a limited edition bic lighter to Pastor Jones.

  • ||

    Gregg Rolie?

  • ¢||

    I wish I could understand the actual mental and emotional motivations...

    You're magically presented with a big red button, the pushing of which by you alone would disintegrate all the black people in California—so the next gay-marriage referendum there can pass. Do you push it?

    Do you not know?

    Would really gettin' in the ol' noggin of someone who, despite a lifetime's rhetoric to the contrary, when presented with a magic button that will accomplish nothing but the death of X of his domestic political foes, does it, clear that up for you?
    Do you not think that's what's up? Why not?

  • DDavis||

    "I mean that if he and I were in a room and disagreed about some issue on which I had any doubt at all, I'd literally trust his judgment over my own. I think he's smarter than me, better informed, better able to understand the consequences of his actions, and more farsighted. I voted for him because I trust his judgment, and I still do."

    #####
    The Dear Leader is smarter, wiser, and more moral than we are. He will lead us into a glorious future! Faith and Obedience!

  • Benjamin Franklin||

    "...a republic, if you can keep it."

  • Benjamin Franklin's Emperor||

    Fat chance suckers. The Empire is here.

  • Congress||

    So, how long before you disband us and we can go on a permanent vacation?

  • seminal penis||

    The Crabs the crabs the crabs the crabs. RON PAUL! He will announce for prez in 2012 in some near future date to be determined. Von Mises is wisest.

  • sevo||

    "The Crabs the crabs the crabs the crabs. RON PAUL! He will announce for prez in 2012 in some near future date to be determined. Von Mises is wisest."

    Sniff, sniff.
    Smells like lefty troll who picked up random names from Kos.

  • A Serious Man||

    "If it had been my call, I wouldn't have gone into Libya. But the reason I voted for Obama in 2008 is because I trust his judgment. And not in any merely abstract way, either: I mean that if he and I were in a room and disagreed about some issue on which I had any doubt at all, I'd literally trust his judgment over my own. I think he's smarter than me, better informed, better able to understand the consequences of his actions, and more farsighted. I voted for him because I trust his judgment, and I still do."

    Holy crap, when did diehard Obama-lover's become like the Nazi generals of WWII? "I wouldn't have tried to capture Stalingrad, but the Fuhrer seems to think it's important. We should listen to his judgment, he's never led us astray before."

  • Amakudari||

    From the Mother Jones commentary section:

    I feel Kant would be able to describe the difference here. The political hawks that drove us into Iraq saw people, and I mean all the stakeholders, as means. I truly believe the President sees all the stakeholders in the Libya situation as ends in themselves.

    Yes, this situation is clearly made better by a speculative glimpse into the President's soul that, if true, still implies a massive ignorance on the Administration's part.

    Also this:

    I'm one of those who approved the decision, and I'm guessing it played rather well in the Muslim world, as well. I also think a desert army cannot hold out indefinitely against the kind of airpower we can bring to bear on them, and that this decision will be looking very good in due course.

    Team Blue cheerleaders must be the most gullible people on this planet. At least the Team Red types said they'd be greeted as liberators before the US stuck its hand in a hornets' nest.

  • Rock Action ||

    I'm not trying to be snarky...this just rings true.

    "Both Obama’s and other presidents’ history of outright lies about their foreign policy intentions shows that voters are powerless to effectively choose a president based on his foreign policy any of his [previously stated] views"

    Although, to be fair, Obama announced his distrust and dislike of individualism fairly frequently, and he sure followed up on that.

  • IceTrey||

    I'd like to know why the MSM isn't jumping all over the Generals. Where the hell is the Joint Chiefs of Staff during all of this? They took and oathe to defend the Constitution too. So did the commanders on the scene.

  • Apathetic||

    Pffft. Who cares? Nothin' any of us Americans can do or say to change anything. You could vote Obama out. It just means he'll be replaced by another corporate puppet that plays for team red/blue. Personally, I can't wait for the next schlub to take office. I'm netting he gets to preside over our collapse.

    FEMA vacations for everybody!!!!

  • converse magasin||

    a technicality that Converse pas cher means that even the 90 day clock (60 days plus a 30 day extension) of unlimited presidential

  • converse en france||

    Americans can do or say to change anything. You could vote Obama out. It just means he'll be replaced by another corporate puppet that plays for team red/blue. Personally, I can't wait for the All Star Converse next schlub to take office. I'm netting he gets to preside over our collapse.

  • Ky Voter||

    Sweet, corporate-sponsored President. I also can't wait for the Lee's Famous Recipe Chicken Secretary of State.

  • Apathetic||

    Since you put it that way. I'll vote for anybody who is sponsored by Church's Chicken. I will also change my name to Hungry for Democratic Chicken. And... I hope they serve chicken at a FEMA Camp.

  • Joseph Zrnchik||

    Stop the dictatorship and end the warfare/welfare state.

    Day of Rage in Washington D.C. on 6/30/11
    http://beforeitsnews.com/story....._2011.html

    The American Revolution Has Begun
    http://beforeitsnews.com/story....._D.C..html

  • ||

    Well, so much for the notion that we can rein in abuses of power via that religious ritual referred to as "voting".

    However "different" the Congress is compared to the Bush years, the result is exactly the same in regard to abuse of executive power: bending over for the presidential phallus.

    And on paper (and in the eyes of people with Obama's ballprints on their chins) Obama couldn't be more "different" than Bush, but come on: what has truly changed? Okay, Bush's fake "folksy" routine has been replaced by Obama's condescending professor routine. But anybody who considers that to be "change" is a moron.

  • colin||

    from the article in the 'shedding blood for oil' hyperlink:
    "If the United States had acted on its own in Libya, that might have allowed Qaddafi and other American foes in the region to portray our intervention as another instance of neo-colonialism"

    So to avoid neo-colonialism, we multilaterally bomb the shit out of Libya alongside (and under pressure from) France, Libya's former Colonial Masters?

    Fucking Retards

  • Offenbach||

    The Constitution hasn't been followed since 1860, so why act so surprised now?

  • ||

    Sec. 1541 of the WPR lists a specific set of circumstances under which a president can deploy combat troops. Libya doesn’t qualify. It says that minus specific congressional declaration or authorization the president needs “a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.”

    Maybe we can just blow up a couple of our own buildings and then invade, worked in 2001

  • BushPig to ObamaPig||

    From embarrassed to ashamed. How can they both walk around with that stupid grinning facade pasted on their heads?

  • Intelligence Meter||

    Is it just me or does Obama seem to be getting stupider as time goes by?

  • daiti||

    Hello! The burning hot summer arrived, this is the demonstration stature good season,
    the retreat wi nter sincere appearance, lets lithe, the individua lity, the fashion,
    the sex appeal, mature you sta rt from here! Has a good news to tell everybody: R ecently,
    every bought full 200 US dollars in this company, then has the present to see off,
    Vietna m which buys delivers are more, please do not miss this good opportunity!!!
    welcome to : http://www.2kuu.com
    free shipping
    competitive price
    any size available
    accept the paypal

  • Cure ear infection||

    Your post is really good providing good information. Food for fertility I liked it and enjoyed reading it.Keep sharing such important posts.Natural laxative foods

  • houston pllumber||

    keep it going

  • قبلة الوداع||

    ThaNk u MaN

  • منتديات العراق||

  • قبلة الوداع||

    thank u

  • aisile||

    ai sile

  • mts||

    Thank you.

  • xiingguan||

    This movie has some nike sb skunk dunks for sale of the same flaws I saw in another attempt at a faithful adaptation of a work of fantastic literature long thought unfilmable, Zach Snyder’s 2009 version of Watchmen...That is, it kobe 7 for sale struck me as a series of filmed recreations of scenes from the famous novel

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement