We have been discussing the growing concerns over President Barack Obama’s series of unilateral actions in ordering agencies not to enforce law, effectively rewriting laws, and moving hundreds of millions of dollars from appropriated purposes to areas of his choosing. One of the greatest concerns has been his unchecked authority asserted in the national security area. I previously represented members of Congress in challenging Obama’s intervention in the Libyan civil war without a declaration from Congress. In the case, President Obama insisted that he alone determines what is a war and therefore when he needs a declaration. Since the court would not recognize standing to challenge the war, it left Obama free to engage in war operations in any country of his choosing. As with his approach in Libya, Syria and other combat operations, President Obama declared this week that he does not need any approval or even consultation with Congress if he decides to commit us again to war again in Iraq.
As in the past, Democrats are not just silent but actually applauding the circumvention of Congress — a precedent that will likely come back to haunt them if the next president is a Republican. House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi of California said that the President does not need congressional approval to do go back into combat and then matter-of-factly that in their brief conversation, the President “did not give us an array of actions he was planning to take.”
While we do not expect combat troops on the ground, the White House appears to be exploring an intervention with air power and possible special forces. The White House simply told Congress and the public to trust their uber president: “Any action that he might contemplate when it comes to … the use of military force will be to deal with the immediate and medium-term threat posed by ISIL.”
I recently testified (here and here and here) and wrote a column on President Obama’s increasing circumvention of Congress in negating or suspending U.S. laws. Obama has repeatedly suspended provisions of the health care law and made unilateral changes that were previously rejected by Congress. He has also moved hundreds of millions from one part of the Act to other parts without congressional approval. Now, his administration is reportedly changing key provisions of the ACA to potentially make billions of dollars available to the insurance industry in a move that was never debated, let alone approved, by the legislative branch. I just ran another column this month listing such incidents of executive over-reach that ideally would have included this potentially huge commitment under Obama’s claimed discretionary authority.
This week I debated the head of the Brennan Center at New York University on Obama’s unilateral actions and the dangers that they pose on the PBS program Newshour. While my co-guest repeatedly insisted that he is “not troubled” by the concentration of authority in the presidency, I again believe that Democrats will long regret that they support the rise of this uber presidency:
@Hohn
From the WSJ: “The weapons stockpiled at the Al Muthanna complex are old, contaminated and hard to move,” i.e. they are from the Iran-Iraq War and Iraq’s Kurdish gassings — of the 1980s!
‘W’ was wrong and you always see what you want to see.
The real question for the ineligible president is does he have the power to abuse power at the IRS and destroy evidence such as Lois Lerner’s, et. al., e-mail?
Talk about Nixon’s 18-minute gap. This is exponential Nixon on steroids. Abuse of power against political opponents preceding an election employing a federal agency for dirty tricks and direct intercession.
Then with inordinate and “dizzying” arrogance you wilfully and deliberately destroy evidence.
18-minute gap. I’ll say! 18-minute gap; with a vengeance!
Can you say Stalin; Mao?
Holy geez! If I had half a brain I’d be afraid, very afraid.
Annie – death is a product of war, both military and civilian. Wars are messy and they are not free.
http://donhodges.com/images/iraq/Demonstrators%20carry%20banners%20and%20Iraqi%20national%20flags%20during%20a%20protest%20march%20in%20Baghdad's%20Sadr%20City%20October%2018,%202008.jpg
This is how much the Iraqi people appreciated our disposing of their dictator for them, not even mentioning the 4.5 thousand lives of our troops and countless maimed and disabled, or the 2 trillion dollars. It wasn’t worth the sacrifice.
Drill in Palin’s backyard.
WALL STREET JOURNAL
Middle East News – Al Muthanna, Iraq
Sunni Extremists in Iraq Occupy Hussein’s Chemical Weapons Facility
Officials Don’t Believe the Militants Will Be Able to Create a Functional Weapon From the Material
Holy geez! That sounds like WMD. “W” couldn’t have been right, could he? Hussein couldn’t have made or obtained WMD by now, what 12 years, could he?
That dudn’t make any sense!
Annie, I never sent anybody’s offspring to fight a war. Our military is voluntary. Yea, I bet Saddam was a pleasure to live under. Although there might be some Iraq women or Kuwaitis who might disagree. I’m glad to see you want to not make it about oil though. Does this mean you are pro-fracking, pro-Keyston and pro-drill baby drill?
Onward Christian Soldiers
Onward, Christian soldiers, marching as to war,
With the cross of Jesus going on before.
Christ, the royal Master, leads against the foe;
Forward into battle see His banners go! Refrain:
Onward, Christian soldiers, marching as to war,
With the cross of Jesus going on before.
We involve ourselves because there are centers for mystical indoctrination on every corner in America. They’re called Christian churches. And they are the opiate of the masses; the basis for mass hysteria.
9/11 was the export version of the Arab-Israeli conflict. And Israel was overjoyed to gain Christian allies in its “hot” war through that event. No more sittin’ on the couch giving moral support.
America derives nothing from a relationship with Israel. Our only interest in the Middle East is oil and we can BUY that.
It’s the Christians, stupid? (James Carville)
Iraq was more stable under Saddam Hussein. Does any country in the ME give a rats butt about the US? Why should we continue to use our troops as oil mercenaries for their sectarian wars? That is NOT what we have an Army and a Navy for. You want endless wars for an endless supply of oil? Send your own offspring.
Paul, True enough, I was kind of wrapping his Kuwait antics in the mass murderer comment.
slohrss29 wrote “If we would attack them”
I never advocated attacking them now, just that we should have done it before. Now we have a dilemma.
Paul wrote “rather than civil war I would term it a religious war”
I would not argue against that.
Paul wrote “Personally, I would wait for them to implode.”
People have been predicting the demise of NK for decades, but it never seems to happen. I do not think you appreciate the DPRK’s system of government. There has never been a country as repressive as NK. Nazi Germany only killed actual dissidents; they never went after their families (Claus von Stauffenberg’s wife lived to the ripe old age of 92, though she was in prison until the end of the war). In NK, the generations above and below the dissident are imprisoned and often executed. This is the main reason why dissent is rare, as Asians revere their families. The families of high-ranking traitors, e.g. Hwang Jang-yop, were treated even worse. Hwang’s family was eradicated down to the roots, with cousins who never even knew they were related being executed; something like 300 people were killed.
P.S. The only reason the Soviet Union imploded is that Gorbachev was not willing to use machine guns against his own people as were his predecessors. If Andropov had lived long enough to hand power to Putin, the USSR would still be a force to reckon with.
saucy – I am well aware of the NK system of repression. However, that does not mean that at some point they will not implode. BTW, the USSR imploded because we spend them into the ground. They could no longer afford to keep up.
Jim22 – he was also a threat to the rest of the Middle East, let us not forget he invaded Kuwait.
Annie, other than Saddam being a mass murderer, why else would we car about Iraq?
on 1, June 20, 2014 at 2:22 pmPaul C. Schulte
saucy – rather than civil war I would term it a religious war.
********************
So why should we involve ourselves in their religious war? Holy Oil?
Annie – that was Petreaus point. However, this particular sect have invaded Iraq.
We automatically assume we are the sole source of “good” in the world. From what I read, most of the world seems to feel we are the big ugly bully from A Christmas Story. We constantly refuse to analyze situations differently from our prejudices.
NK is falling apart. If we would attack them, that would legitimize the crazy government they have. I think that is proven logic.
“Inside the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad”
“As the U.S. “relocates” personnel (it’s not an “evacuation”) out of the World’s Largest Embassy in Baghdad, it is valuable to look at that one billion dollar monument to American hubris.”
http://wemeantwell.com/blog/2014/06/20/inside-the-u-s-embassy-in-baghdad/
saucy – rather than civil war I would term it a religious war.
Once again, should be up to them to figure out. Those are our borders (well, Great Britain too…), and expecting that to work out over time was a fool’s errand. I know–next time we have an election, like 2000, we should invite the Chinese military to come here and tell us what to do. That will fix everything, and all will be happy and complacent.
slohrss29 wrote “NK–Japan’s problem. Look at a map”
NK’s missile already has the range to hit the West Coast, as I wrote; its accuracy is poor, but that comes with time and tests. Use some logic.
Paul wrote “it seems more of an invasion”
I understand your point. ISIL is an al-Qaeda clone which intends to create a caliphate stretching across many countries. It appears that ISIL has studied Iran’s Revolution Guard in terms of battle tactics. But I view the Shia/Sunni thing as an Islamic civil war which has raged since Muhammad’s death. Saudi Arabia is backing ISIL from its comments. Saudi Arabia and Iran hate each other and it is not a coincidence that the former is Sunni and the latter is Shia — and both are major sponsors of terrorism.