White House maintaining it doesn't need permission...

[kgbsquirrel]

...from congress to continue non-hostile hostilities.


http://www.military.com/news/article/white-house-rejects-war-powers-mandate.html?ESRC=dod.nl

In a meeting with White House reporters late yesterday afternoon, officials – speaking on condition of anonymity – argued the administration does not need any further authority from Congress to keep U.S. troops in the conflict.

Interesting times and all that. What does anyone think of the odds of The Big O' getting impeached over this?

[lupinus]

Odds? Slim to none. With a bigger conservative majority...maybe it squeaks, but currently? Not a chance. Not unless maybe they just want to make a showing out of it and fail.

Now, should he though? Yes, IMO.

[Waitone]

I won't give odds given the so-called loyal opposition.  Spinelessrepublicans had better learn a lesson.  It is getting really tiresome to hear the likes of Orin Hatch or Boehner huff and puff about deadlines and then when the deadline passes nothing happens.

Hey, Mr. Boehner, shut up!  Don't talk, just act.  If you have no intention of expending political capital, keep your mouth shut.  You come off like a political eunich.  There is a lot of damage your and your fellow spinelessrepublicans can do.  All you have to do is jettison the "comity" crap and get down and dirty.

I feel better now.

[De Selby]

Why is this only now controversial?  Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush, and a host of other presidents made this very same argument throughout their terms.

This is why it's bad to cheerlead such things when your candidate is in office; the next candidate who wins might be different, but he'll have the same power.

[Regolith]

Why is this only now controversial?  Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush, and a host of other presidents made this very same argument throughout their terms.

This is why it's bad to cheerlead such things when your candidate is in office; the next candidate who wins might be different, but he'll have the same power.

Maybe because candidate Obama said it was a bad thing, and repeatedly attacked Bush for doing it (even though Bush did get Congressional mandates for both the Iraq and Afghanistan wars).

People don't like hypocrites.

[Jamisjockey]

Why is this only now controversial?  Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush, and a host of other presidents made this very same argument throughout their terms.

This is why it's bad to cheerlead such things when your candidate is in office; the next candidate who wins might be different, but he'll have the same power.

As others have stated, candiate obama campaigned against this sort of behavior. 

[De Selby]

True, there is the hypocrisy - I hope we oppose it because it's a bad thing too. Though.

Obama campaigned on an image of being a leftist, but he ran on the substance of being a GW Bush wall street candidate.  He's certainly delivered to his high paying constituents.

Might be worth a constitutional re-think of executive power someday.  This model is not working to restrain it.

[longeyes]

Why is this only now controversial?  Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush, and a host of other presidents made this very same argument throughout their terms.

This is why it's bad to cheerlead such things when your candidate is in office; the next candidate who wins might be different, but he'll have the same power.

Maybe because we've all gotten savvier about the games being played by those in the Establishment (and floating above it)?  Because we were living in a dream world completely ignorant about our financial predicament, innocent of how the culture was changing under our feet, and still too credulous about what was going on? 

[Perd Hapley]

Maybe because candidate Obama said it was a bad thing, and repeatedly attacked Bush for doing it (even though Bush did get Congressional mandates for both the Iraq and Afghanistan wars).

When did G W Bush violate the War Powers act? Or Clinton, Bush I or Reagan?


As for Reagan vs. Obama, compare Reagan's handling of govt-employee unions, vs. Obama's. Also, Obama's handing over GM to the UAW.

[longeyes]

Obama is not going to be impeached because the forces of de facto dictatorship won some time ago.  Only our awareness of our chains is new.  The Left has bet the farm on our apathy, hopefulness, and good manners (and, yes, fear).  So far it's a pretty good bet.  Would that fixing the country were as simple as impeaching and convicting Obama.  Obama is not some random virus introduced into the body politic, he is the evolved organism itself.  That is why self-amputation is required, and if you've seen 127 Hours you know how that goes.

[roo_ster]

DS:

None of those you mention violated the WPA.  All got Congress on-board within the required timeframe.  The may have said the WPA is null, but they acted like it was live.

[De Selby]

DS:

None of those you mention violated the WPA.  All got Congress on-board within the required timeframe.  The may have said the WPA is null, but they acted like it was live.

Clinton most definitely did not - In the former Yugoslavia, for example.  Executive power wins almost every time in these cases.  The chances of Obama losing a WPA case on this, if you look at past precedent (wholly embraced and actively promoted at every turn by those past presidents) are almost zero.

[Jamisjockey]

True, there is the hypocrisy - I hope we oppose it because it's a bad thing too. Though.

Obama campaigned on an image of being a leftist, but he ran on the substance of being a GW Bush wall street candidate.  He's certainly delivered to his high paying constituents.

Might be worth a constitutional re-think of executive power someday.  This model is not working to restrain it.

I for one supported many of his positions on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, Gitmo, rendition, the war on "terror", as well as what he claimed would be his process for getting us into further conflicts.  Only the pull out of Iraq is coming to fruition.

Oh, and BHO's own words, from 2002:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eT0QzdoxZLY

Moar!

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

As Commander-in-Chief, the President does have a duty to protect and defend the United States. In instances of self-defense, the President would be within his constitutional authority to act before advising Congress or seeking its consent. History has shown us time and again, however, that military action is most successful when it is authorized and supported by the Legislative branch. It is always preferable to have the informed consent of Congress prior to any military action.

Source
http://www.boston.com/news/politics/2008/specials/CandidateQA/ObamaQA/