Monday, October 6, 2014

Is President Obama Really a War Hawk?...

by: Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA
Purveyor of Truth


Senator Tim Kaine (D-Va)

Is it reasonable to argue that the President is, in fact a war hawk? Given his significant increase in drone attacks and his unwavering position he does not need Congresses blessing to wake war against ISIS it is reasonable to answer yes to the foregoing question. Senator Tim Kaine, an early supporter of the President thinks he overreaching his authority.

ORANGE, Va. — In June, after he had written a scorching opinion article seeking to constrain the president’s unilateral power to make war, Senator Tim Kaine of Virginia, one of Barack Obama’s earliest supporters, buttonholed the commander in chief at the White House for what he called “a spirited discussion.”

The militants of the Islamic State were pouring across the Syrian border into Iraq, and seizing cities where so much American blood and treasure had been spilled. But Mr. Kaine said he told the president in no uncertain terms that if he intended to go to war, he would have to ask Congress’s permission. President Obama politely but firmly disagreed.

They have been battling ever since.

Mr. Kaine is an unlikely leader in the fight between Congress and the White House over a declaration of war. Genial and junior, the former Virginia governor was on Mr. Obama’s short list for the vice presidency in 2008. He became Mr. Obama’s handpicked Democratic Party chairman, then his handpicked senatorial candidate after Senator Jim Webb, a Democrat, announced his retirement in 2011.

But Mr. Kaine established his position in May, when he introduced legislation to repeal the 2002 authorization of force that paved the way for the invasion of Iraq. Then in September, he drafted his alternative, a narrowly tailored resolution to give Congress’s blessing to a war against the Islamic State, with a one-year time limit and explicit language ensuring the mission could not expand, either to ground troops or to other targets.

Mr. Kaine traces his defiance on the subject of war powers to his state’s deep military ties, from the vast Pentagon apparatus to the sprawling bases in Norfolk, but also to Virginia’s unique place in the nation’s founding.

“It’s no surprise, and it’s heartening that a Virginia legislator is taking this back to the foundations,” said C. Douglas Smith, vice president for the Robert H. Smith Center for the Constitution, housed in James Madison’s ancestral home here. “Someone so close to the president, appearing to want to constrain the president, he wants to rise above.”

Mr. Kaine’s beliefs also have roots in the gracious estate of Montpelier, where Madison began drafting the Constitution, and down the road at Thomas Jefferson’s more famous mansion, Monticello, where checks on executive power were nurtured with religious fervor.

“They know I feel strongly about this because I’m a Virginian,” Mr. Kaine said of the White House. “Until we have a vote, and we live by that vote, I am going to keep pushing them hard.”

Senator Kaine is right and the nation should stand solidly behind him on this. Regardless of party affiliation or political views in other areas.

Continue reading BELOW THE FOLD

Via: Memeorandum

41 comments:

  1. The fact that Obama is citing legislation that he previously said should be repealed (the AUMF) to justify his ordering of the ISIS airstrikes is proof he is overreaching his authority. This is legislation that only one member of Congress voted against. And, in regards to that wise NO vote, another blogger said that she "voted like the Taliban slipped her a check". Surely this is proof that the Congresswoman who voted NO was right?

    ReplyDelete
  2. What, no links?

    However you wish it to be DS.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The link is in the line "another blogger said". "Said" is a link. This link...
      http://www.w-dervish.blogspot.com/2014/03/belated-praise-for-congresswoman.html.

      The comment is quoted on my blog in a post that contains all the other pertinent info. The original comment was deleted by it's author (as he often does when I link to his comments).

      "he often does" is a link to this page...
      http://truthaboutdennis.blogspot.com/2014/07/the-dennis-marks-amusement-factor-lie.html

      Delete
    2. Oh the bones get gnawed....

      Delete
  3. War Hawk? Despite all, he is no Hawk. Given the same intelligence of ISIS, the situation in Syria, why gosh, GWB would have invaded Australia by now. The 'would be' President, Sarah Palin, has already called for an invasion of Ebola to free the dying citizens there.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Not even going to check to see if she really did say that, OKJimm... because that's funny.

      Delete
  4. Well, anything we might about what GWB might have done given the same intelligbce really is conjecture. But, its a fairly safe bet he might have. Probably with a go ahead nod from Congress first I might add.

    Sarah Who? :)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. A "go ahead nod from Congress"??? Sure. Or he might have just have cited the AUMF same as Obama. If Congress wanted a "nod" they'd repeal or revise the AUMF as Obama recommended.

      Delete
    2. Signed 9/18/01 by GWB the AUMF was in response to 911.

      Delete
    3. Bad legislation that gave the CIC way to much power. At least it should have had an expiration date. If your point, RN, is to say that Obama shouldn't be citing it because it is not applicable... then I agree. But he did still cited it. Using the tools at his disposal, I suppose. Which is why the former president would NOT have sought that "nod". Congress should repeal or revise (repeal being my prefered option).

      Delete
    4. One of my points DS. Dave in his comment below made another.

      What is really intriguing to me DS is just why you are so obsessed with GWB. Try as yo might you are not going to convince anybody that matters that he was a or is a war criminal. Hell, I could make the case LBJ was a war criminal and about as many people that argument as by yours relative to GWB.

      I know, old bones. So, this is the last I will discuss or respond to "old bones" with respect to GWB.

      I agree, Congress should do just that. Each situation should be a specific case resulting in a specific decision and Congress should DEFER to the Constitution.

      Delete
    5. He has no sense of proportion, Les. Yes, Bush was a poor President but compared to Millard Fillmore, Andrew Johnson, Richard Nixon, and especially Woodrow Wilson, the dude doesn't seem nearly as bad by comparison.......And, yes, I would say the same exact thing to those on the right who claim that Obama is the devil.

      Delete
    6. I'm looking at this from the objectivist perspective. GWB's crappy presidency affected MY life. The bad presidencies of these other fellows negatively affected the lives of people who lived before I was born. Wilson, BTW, is ranked up there as one of our better presidents. But maybe Will has some bad memories of the Wilson presidency that are effecting his opinion of the dude?

      Delete
  5. While we play this little game of who gets to declare war I would pose a question.

    Does ISIS wish to unite Sunni Arabs in a confrontation first with Sunni Muslims and then with the west and are our attacks facilitating that goal.
    Kaine or Obama, who cares. Neither is thinking long term and both think military action is a panacea.

    ReplyDelete
  6. IMO, if Obama is a war hawk, he is a reluctant one. It would seem logical to seek congressional approval, if for nothing else to share blame should things go awry, as well as present a somewhat
    united front.

    ReplyDelete
  7. To your comment BB Idaho I would only add, and to follow the Constitution.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Indeed. However, IMO, the Constitution is what SCOTUS says it is, which sometimes doesn't seem to be the way citizens read and interpret it. Then we have this fairly recent precedent:
    "As I made clear to congressional leaders at the outset, my request for congressional support did not, and my signing this resolution does not, constitute any change in the long-standing positions of the executive branch on either the President’s constitutional authority to use the Armed Forces to defend vital U.S. interests or the constitutionality of the War Powers Resolution." Pres George Bush
    ...a bit of murkiness which sounds like the fingerprints of Dick Cheney, admittedly. Furthermore, we
    note.
    "In the infancy of societies, the chiefs of the state shape its institutions; later the institutions shape the chiefs of state". ~Baron de Montesquieu


    ReplyDelete
  9. Yes, I suppose. Nonetheless, the Constitution I believe still grants the power to declare war only to Congress. A sensible provision in the nation's beginning and sensible today, IMO.

    Those sentiments of the Founders that advised avoiding foreign entanglements were wise ones.. Too bad they weer discarded so easily by the internationalists that eventually followed.

    Ah, the lure of power. The ultimate undoing of civilization and mankind.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree. Despite our history of having troops all over the world and inserted here and there on occasion, Congress has declared war only eleven times and issued an authorization to use force eleven times. Given the shifting terrorism
      threat, another authorization seems appropriate and required.

      Delete
  10. Ducky, does anyone in power think long term and outside the box?

    It seems we keep on hearing "play it again Sam."

    So we do...

    ReplyDelete
  11. Only by the whacked-out neoconservative standards of a Charles Krauthammer could President Obama ever be considered anything but an full-bore interventionist and, while I generally don't agree with Noam Chomsky, a reasonable case could be made that Obama is in certain ways worse than Bush.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Agreed Will. I think. But I really need to do some further thinking <and perhaps research) on the matter.

    ReplyDelete
  13. If the president wasn't an interventionist what would he be doing? Nothing? And, isn't this what RN advocated for? A coalition that included Muslim countries? Anyway, haven't we not been following the Constitution since the War Powers Act was passed?

    ReplyDelete
  14. No...Yes, a coalition...No, but you decide. Oh, that's right, you already have DS.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Not a big fan of coalescing with fascist mouth-breathers like the Saudis but I guess that you can't always pick your friends in these instances.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Will said: "....fascist mouth-breathers..."

      Like Erdogan, who once proclaimed "Thank God almighty, I am a servant of sharia.”?

      Delete
  16. Will: Turkey is getting as bad. The would be dictator, Erdogan, funds terrorist, urges a global war against Jews, diligently works to dismantle Turkey's secular society, and wants to roll back a century of progress to make Turkey a state ruled by terrorist law.

    Remember his shameful flotilla to arm Hamas.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So why did Benjamin Netanyahu apologize to him?

      Delete
    2. I have an idea DS, why don't you give all your take as to why he apologised?

      Delete
  17. In a recent speech in which Erdogan vented antisemitic rants about Israel, he specifically swore that the Israelis would "drown in blood". Savage and genocidal language not suited to a statesman, to say the least.

    Netanyahu is a statesman, which is why he responded with an apology over the terrorist-aid flotilla incident... as opposed to doing something like responding "in kind" and bellowing demands for the deaths of all Turks. Netanyahu took the high road. That's my take on it, RN. Though, forgive me, you did not ask for it.

    I wonder how many others here have had Turkish friends in Turkey during the crisis there?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks dmarks, you are correct.

      Sorry DS, I inadvertantly deleted your comment. My response... to what the UN say is so what. Not being a big one world govt. type of individual.

      Delete
    2. Talking of Erdogan like this is off topic enough. I suppose bringing up the UN in defense of Erdogan wanting to kill off the Jews will be even more so...

      Delete
  18. Nobody brought up the UN in defense of Erdogan "wanting to kill off the Jews". I was referring to the freedom flotilla and how Israel was in the wrong for attacking it. This is why the apology was made. As well as an offer of 20 million dollars in compensation. As for being "off topic", I wasn't the one who made the original comment. Now the OC argues for the blog proprietor to not publish my response because he doesn't like it that I responded to what he said?

    As for the "drown in blood" comment, dmarks cuts it off (thus misrepresenting what was said). Erdogan referred to the blood of Palestinians killed by Israelis. (Full comment: “They will drown in the blood they shed”). He was condemning the violence, in other words (although, yes, just the violence committed by one side). BTW, in pointing this out my only intent is to get the facts of what was really said out there. I'm not defending this guy in general.

    ReplyDelete
  19. So, you are defending him in specific?

    Which specific(s) DS.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. RN: in labelling Turkey's armed flotilla to aid HAMAS (essentially a naval attack on Israelis) as a "freedom flotilla", there is reason here to bribe that DS is siding with HAMAS terrorists. Agree?

      Delete
    2. Above, " believe" came out as "bribe".I hate auto correct.

      Delete
  20. Suggestion for DS. Keep comments constructive, relative, and avoid being obtuse.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes.. it is best not to continually whine about some perceived and imagined slight by the blog administrator. We are guests here, and should observe basic courtesies.

      Delete
  21. Is is constructive to accuse someone of "siding with Hamas"? I side with those who desire peace and attempt to bring that about via peaceful means, in this case a peaceful protest. As was the purpose of the Freedom Flotilla. Perhaps not every last person who joined, but keeping out the troublemakers can be problematic. Much more problematic was the excessive force used by the Israeli military. An offense Netanyahu ACKNOWLEDGED with his apology and 20 million in compensation. And dmarks ignores my pointing out that he misrepresented the Erdogan quote.

    ReplyDelete

As this site encourages free speech and expression any and all honest political commentary is acceptable. Comments with cursing or vulgar language will not be posted.

Effective 8/12/13 Anonymous commenting has been disabled. This unfortunate action was made necessary due to the volume of Anonymous comments that are either off topic or serve only to disrupt honest discourse..

I apologizes for any inconvenience this necessary action may cause the honest Anonymous who would comment here, respect proper decorum and leave comments of value. However, The multitude of trollish attack comments from both the left and right has necessitated this action.

Thank you for your understanding... The management.